First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Trump thinks there's too much free speech.
Posted 3 days ago


good post, lots of common sense, but its just lacking the view of the brick wall at the back of the theater
108 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / M / America.
Offline
Posted 3 days ago
I don't necessarily agree with this but if this does get passed when he's appointed into office, there's an easy way for this to not affect you.

Don't burn the damn flag.
17869 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

GamingGodzilla wrote:

I don't necessarily agree with this but if this does get passed when he's appointed into office, there's an easy way for this to not affect you.

Don't burn the damn flag.

You give up one freedom and they will take another then another and so on
and it's not like the flags were made in China right?
35872 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

fluffytailz3000 wrote:

It's a piece of fabric utter bullshit.


Where you are you can be arrested for 'hate speech' on the internet. Why do you care about 'freeze peach'?
One Punch Mod
85792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 3 days ago , edited 3 days ago
I've deleted several posts that were part of an exchange consisting primarily of derogatory personal remarks and commentary about them.

Due to a bug, a few subsequent posts may be displayed out of order.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005


The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), with original co-sponsor Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).[1] Additional co-sponsors include Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Thomas Carper (D-DE). The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in jail and a fine of no more than $100,000.[1][2][3]


4D QUANTAM BACKGAMMON FOLKS


"with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism"

Context matters.
19480 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / NYC Metro Area
Offline
Posted 3 days ago , edited 3 days ago
No need to worry, the Supreme Court made it clear that it is unconstitutional.

Quite frankly, I don't hold those who burn the flag in high regard. My family like many others here are decedents of poor immigrants and this country gave us the opportunity to own a home and become members of the middle class through hard work.

That being said, if we are going to continue to have true Freedom of Speech we must continue to defend all speech, including stuff we personally feel is controversial or it is only a matter of time until the rest of us lose our voice; this is already happening in some Western countries...
725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3 days ago , edited 3 days ago
The guy is literally trump.
35872 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

sundin13 wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005


The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), with original co-sponsor Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).[1] Additional co-sponsors include Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Thomas Carper (D-DE). The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in jail and a fine of no more than $100,000.[1][2][3]


4D QUANTAM BACKGAMMON FOLKS


"with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism"

Context matters.


There is no context save for disposing of a damaged flag that isn't intimidation or inciting violence.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3 days ago , edited 3 days ago
Flag burning is free speech? Sorry its burning property. Well in the hands of those protesters its trash, so burning trash. Hold up Burning trash on a road or on other peoples property even your own is a crime. What you know there is a loop hole that shows that burning flags can indeed be counted as a crime small fine but still how many times can they do a burning if they keep getting fined for it.
13127 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005


The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), with original co-sponsor Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).[1] Additional co-sponsors include Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Thomas Carper (D-DE). The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in jail and a fine of no more than $100,000.[1][2][3]


4D QUANTAM BACKGAMMON FOLKS


"with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism"

Context matters.


There is no context save for disposing of a damaged flag that isn't intimidation or inciting violence.


I think most courts would put protest outside of those boundaries. While I do think that the language of said law is very poor (needs to more clearly define itself), there is context present which makes it quite different from saying "flag burning=crime".
16735 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

octorockandroll wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005


The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), with original co-sponsor Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY).[1] Additional co-sponsors include Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Thomas Carper (D-DE). The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in jail and a fine of no more than $100,000.[1][2][3]


4D QUANTAM BACKGAMMON FOLKS


Not sure what your point is here. It was only a proposed law that never passed. It failed (although by a slim margin, to its credit) as far as I am aware the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of the United States v. Eichmann still stands, stating that burning the flag was a constitutionally protected form of free speech.


Meaning the whole tweet was literally for nothing but served to get people to look up the "Flag protection act of 2005"
41641 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 3 days ago
"I support free speech, unless that speech is against me", basically.
Yeah I'd expect nothing less from someone so goddamn egocentric.
70 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3 days ago
bump
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.