He would own your ass if you did business with or against him.

Dims played chess while pubic hair played checkers. Now trump plays 3D chess and it's blowing everyone's mind!

Omg!!!

"Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. "

You America-haters love altering the Constitution through judicial legislation and penumbral emanations.

America-hater

And you don't respect private property either, so you're a communist as well!

If they own the flag, they can do with it as they wish, you commie rat.

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' -- those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace -- are not protected by the first amendment. Burning the flag is no different than fighting words.

Or, it can be argued that burning the flag is hate speech and is not protected.

Flag burning is a protected form of political expression.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/case.html

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

U.S. Supreme Court

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Texas v. Johnson

No. 88-155

Argued March 21, 1989

Decided June 21, 1989

491 U.S. 397

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

Syllabus

During the 1984 Republican National Convention, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.

Held: Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-420.

(a) Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-406.

(b) Texas has not asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression and would therefore permit application of the test set forth in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, whereby an important governmental interest in regulating nonspeech can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms when speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct. An interest in preventing breaches of the peace is not implicated on this record. Expression may not be prohibited

Page 491 U. S. 398

on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace, since the Government cannot assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but must look to the actual circumstances surrounding the expression. Johnson's expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's policies also does not fall within the class of "fighting words" likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. This Court's holding does not forbid a State to prevent "imminent lawless action" and, in fact, Texas has a law specifically prohibiting breaches of the peace. Texas' interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity is related to expression in this case and, thus, falls outside the O'Brien test. Pp. 491 U. S. 406-410.

(c) The latter interest does not justify Johnson's conviction. The restriction on Johnson's political expression is content based, since the Texas statute is not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed to protect it from intentional and knowing abuse that causes serious offense to others. It is therefore subject to "the most exacting scrutiny." Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312. The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved. Nor may a State foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it, since the Government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a limited set of messages. Moreover, this Court will not create an exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment for the American flag alone. Pp. 491 U. S. 410-422.

755 S.W.2d 92, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 491 U. S. 420. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 491 U. S. 421. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 491 U. S. 436.

Page 491 U. S. 399

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/310/case.html

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

Syllabus

After this Court held, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, that a Texas statute criminalizing desecration of the United States flag in a way that the actor knew would seriously offend onlookers was unconstitutional as applied to an individual who had burned a flag during a political protest, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act criminalizes the conduct of anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" a United States flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a "worn or soiled" flag. Subsequently, appellees were prosecuted in the District Courts for violating the Act: some for knowingly burning several flags while protesting various aspects of the Government's policies and others, in a separate incident, for knowingly burning a flag while protesting the Act's passage. In each case, appellees moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Act violates the First Amendment. Both District Courts, following Johnson, supra, held the Act unconstitutional as applied, and dismissed the charges.

Held: Appellees' prosecution for burning a flag in violation of the Act is inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Government concedes, as it must, that appellees' flag-burning constituted expressive conduct, and this Court declines to reconsider its rejection in Johnson of the claim that flag-burning as a mode of expression does not enjoy the First Amendment's full protection. It is true that this Act, unlike the Texas law, contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Government's asserted interest in protecting the "physical integrity" of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content, of free expression. The mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol's physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government's interest is implicated only when a person's treatment of the flag communicates a message to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals. The precise language of the Act's

Page 496 U. S. 311

prohibitions confirms Congress' interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction, since each of the specified terms -- with the possible exception of "burns" -- unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a focus on those acts likely to damage the flag's symbolic value, and since the explicit exemption for disposal of "worn or soiled" flags protects certain acts traditionally associated with patriotic respect for the flag. Thus, the Act suffers from the same fundamental flaw as the Texas law, and its restriction on expression cannot "be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech,'" Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 485 U. S. 320. It must therefore be subjected to "the most exacting scrutiny," id. at 485 U. S. 321, and, for the reasons stated in Johnson, supra, at 491 U. S. 413-415, the Government's interest cannot justify its infringement on First Amendment rights. This conclusion will not be reassessed in light of Congress' recent recognition of a purported "national consensus" favoring a prohibition on flag-burning, since any suggestion that the Government's interest in suppressing speech becomes more weighty as popular opposition to that speech grows is foreign to the First Amendment. While flag desecration -- like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures -- is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Pp. 496 U. S. 313-319.

No. 89-1433, 731 F.Supp. 1123 (DDC 1990); No. 89-1434, 731 F.Supp. 415, affirmed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 496 U. S. 319.

Page 496 U. S. 312

Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

If they own the flag, they can do with it as they wish

If they own the loudspeaker, they can use it to incite an immediate breach of the peace, by your pathetic attempt at reasoning.

If they own the loudspeaker, they can use it

Your ignorance of the BOR knows no bounds!

A little further along in the 1st amendment is the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. We used to go to the White House to yell at LBJ in the '60's! These high rollers can afford a bullhorn. Good for them.

Alex Jones explains the 1st and liberty to your commie brethren....

Alex Jones explains the 1st and liberty to your commie brethren....

you should as hell strike me as some alex jones loon,

TRUMP WON and you can't get over it, you pretend that he didn't or that you morons will impeach him,but you silly people can't do anything but posture and whine like little girls

your tears of pain are salty but enjoyable, post some more of your stupid sh*t it just gets funnier.

you should as hell strike me as some alex jones loon,

Alex is a Trumpanzee so he's closer to you. Jones is a Trumptard because playing that game puts money in his pocket. Like Trump, he's good at playing the suckers.

We used to go to the White House to yell at LBJ in the '60's!

And did that incite an immediate breach of the peace?

Weakling.

Trumpanzee Trumptard Trump

It's going to be a terrible eight years for you, snowflake. Great for people who work for a living.

"Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment," Amash tweeted.

Amash is arguably the most pro-freedom loving politician in DC.

Wonder why none of the candidates for POTUS ever even mentioned cutting back on the police/surveillance state.

Instead we have a right wing version of Hillary as president.

it can be argued that burning the flag is hate speech and is not protected.

Or that burning the flag is "likely to incite imminent lawless action".

Three reasons why burning the flag is not protected by the first amendment.

Is Flag Burning Protected Speech?

Before the Supreme Court ruled that burning your own flag in public is lawful, federal law and numerous state laws had made it criminal to do so. In analyzing those laws before it declared them to be unconstitutional, the Court looked at the original public understanding of those laws and concluded that they were intended not as fire safety regulations — the same statutes permitted other public fires — but rather as prophylactics intended to coerce reverence for the American flag by criminalizing the burning of privately owned pieces of cloth that were recognizable as American flags.

That is where the former statutes ran into trouble. Had they banned all public fires in given locations, for public safety sake, they probably would have withstood a constitutional challenge. But since these statutes were intended to suppress the ideas manifested by the public flag burning, by making the public expression of those ideas criminal, the statutes ran afoul of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing upon the freedom of speech, has consistently been interpreted in the modern era so as to insulate the public manifestation of political ideas from any government interference, whether the manifestation is by word or deed or both. This protection applies even to ideas that are hateful, offensive, unorthodox and outright un-American. Not a few judges and constitutional scholars have argued that the First Amendment was written for the very purpose of protecting the expression of hateful ideas, as loveable or popular ideas need no protection.

Had they banned all public fires in given locations, for public safety sake,

In the case of burning the American flag in public, the danger to public safety did NOT lie in the possibility of accidentally burning someone.

Transparent and lame.

you should as hell strike me as some alex jones loon,

I guess Trump is one of those "Alex Jones loons" too.

Alex Jones: Trump called to say thanks for support, will appear on show soon

Three reasons why burning the flag is not protected by the first amendment.

And all 3 reasons are meaningless because the courts have consistently ruled that flag burning is a form of political free speech.

I personally wouldn't have it any other way. Seems to me we have the enemy identifying themselves. Seems like win/win to me.

courts have consistently ruled

5/4 1989

Time to return to original intent.

I see the people in that photo more as targets than allies,though.

Wonder why none of the candidates for POTUS ever even mentioned cutting back on the police/surveillance state.

Because the vast majority are leftists that rely on the police state to protect them.

There are no prominent powerful conservatives left in America politics.

Time to return to original intent.

Original Intent was FREE SPEECH in ALL it's many forms,and NO speech was to be freer than "Political Speech".

Be careful what you ask for,lest you get it.

Original Intent was FREE SPEECH in ALL it's many forms

“[N]othing in the text of the Constitution, or in the eighteenth-century understanding of freedom of speech, supports the proposition that prohibiting the burning of the flag infringes free speech...” - Judge Richard Posner

“[N]othing in the text of the Constitution, or in the eighteenth-century understanding of freedom of speech, supports the proposition that prohibiting the burning of the flag infringes free speech...” - Judge Richard Posner

Yeah,but what would Judge Judy say?

Judge Richard Posner

Interesting that you would quote someone like Posner as a source for your dementia.

Judge Richard Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries — well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments),” he wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”

Richard Posner

Abortion

Posner has written several opinions sympathetic to abortion rights, including a decision that held that late term abortion was constitutionally protected in some circumstances.^[20]

In November 2015 Posner authored a decision in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, inc., et al. v. Brad D. Schimel striking down regulations on abortion clinics in Wisconsin. He rejected the state's argument that the laws were written to protect the health of women and not to make abortion more difficult to obtain. Accusing the state of indirectly trying to ban abortions in the state Posner wrote, "They [Wisconsin] may do this in the name of protecting the health of women who have abortions, yet as in this case the specific measures they support may do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion.

Drugs

Posner opposes the US "War on Drugs" and called it "quixotic". In a 2003 CNBC interview he discussed the difficulty of enforcing criminal marijuana laws, and asserted that it is hard to justify the criminalization of marijuana when compared to other substances. In a talk at Elmhurst College in 2012, Posner said that "I don't think that we should have a fraction of the drug laws that we have. I think it's really absurd to be criminalizing possession or use or distribution of marijuana.

National Security

At the Cybercrime 2020: The Future of Online Crime and Investigations conference held at Georgetown University Law Center on November 20, 2014, Posner, in addition to further reinforcing his views on privacy being over-rated, stated that "If the NSA wants to vacuum all the trillions of bits of information that are crawling through the electronic worldwide networks, I think that's fine.

... Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct," Posner added. "Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you."

Posner also criticized mobile OS companies for enabling end-to-end encryption in their newest software. "I'm shocked at the thought that a company would be permitted to manufacture an electronic product that the government would not be able to search" he said

Same-sex marriage

In September 2014, Posner authored the opinions in the consolidated cases of Wolf v. Walker and Baskin v. Bogan challenging Wisconsin and Indiana's state level same-sex marriage bans. The opinion of the three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Indiana and Wisconsin's bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, affirming a lower court ruling.[4]

During oral arguments, Wisconsin's Attorney General cited tradition as a reason for maintaining the ban, prompting Posner to note that: "It was tradition to not allow blacks and whites to marry – a tradition that got swept away." Posner claimed that the same-sex marriage bans were both "a tradition of hate" and "savage discrimination".[36] Posner wrote the opinion for the unanimous panel, suggesting the laws unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court then denied writ of certiorari and left Posner's ruling to stand.

Today, although generally viewed as to the right in academia, Posner's pragmatism, his qualified moral relativism and moral skepticism,[16] and his affection for the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche set him apart from most American conservatives.

As a judge, with the exception of his rulings with respect to the sentencing guidelines and the recording of police actions, Posner's judicial votes have always placed him on the moderate-to-liberal wing of the Republican Party, where he has become more isolated over time.

In July 2012, Posner stated, "I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy.

Obama’s Favorite Law Professor (The apple doesn't fall far from the tree)

Eric Posner hates freedom of speech.

The University of Chicago law prof made this clear in an article for Slate in 2012 titled “The World Doesn’t Love the First Amendment.” “Americans,” Posner wrote, “need to learn that the rest of the world — and not just Muslims — see no sense in the First Amendment,” and realize that “they might have a point.”

Posner, son of Judge Richard Posner and a former classmate of President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, likened the First Amendment to a “dear old uncle who enacted heroic deeds in his youth but on occasion says embarrassing things about taboo subjects in his decline.”

Now Posner has weighed in on freedom of the press. Turns out he’s against that, too.

In the case in question, New York Times reporter James Risen is being ordered by the federal government to name his source for a story about an attempt by the CIA to scuttle Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

This is part of the Obama administration’s alleged “war on whistleblowers.” Risen is being ordered to testify in the government’s case against former CIA hand James Sterling.

Posner, who must be one of Obama’s favorite law professors after he sided with the censors on Benghazi and argued the president could unilaterally lift the debt limit with few consequences, is very much rooting against the journalists.

The prof argues the press has “not earned our trust.” Why, “if the Supreme Court were to create a reporter’s privilege, it would encourage leaks that ought to be plugged.”

Official White House mouthpiece Jay Carney couldn’t have said it better.

There are no prominent powerful conservatives left in America politics.

jones.house.gov/

Walter B. Jones is still in the HOR, and retains his seat on the Armed Services Committee, in spite of Boehner removing him from others. At 73 years old, he still refuses to tow the party line. He's also a member of the Liberty Caucus.

Some people never learn. ;)

“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”

Flag burning isn't particularly high tech. Even you could figure out how to do it.

I see you are afraid to own up to your apparent worship of a leftist like Posner.

Sucks to be you.

Historical facts are historical facts

The historical facts show Posner to be a a pro-abortion, pro-homo marriage loon, yet you parrot his statements as if they were Gospel.

To be fair, he did get it right on the marijuana question.

The historical facts show Posner to be a a pro-abortion, pro-homo marriage loon

And once again your flee the historical facts regarding the actual meaning and original intent of the First Amendment, gibbering angrily.

Work up whatever minuscule reserve of nerve you might have, and at least try.

Historical facts are historical facts.

Posner: "Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you."

Hmmm...where have we heard that type of statement before?

Oh, I know..

And once again your flee the historical facts regarding the actual meaning and original intent of the First Amendment,

The issue has been settled, didn't you get the memo?

By all means, keep up the delusional belief that burning a flag is not protected by the First Amendment.

The issue has been settled, didn't you get the memo?

Quote the "memo."

You've fled in terror each time you've been challenged so far.

"The statute of Nebraska preventing and punishing the desecration of the flag of the United States and prohibiting the sale of articles upon which there is a representation of the flag for advertising purposes is not unconstitutional..." - Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907)

our ken

And Donnie...

Given the sentiments expressed by the court that you highlighted, how is it that prohibiting hate speech is constitutional?

Political speech is protected. Hate speech is not necessarily political speech and can be made for the purpose of creating a disturbance.

If Donald Trump went somewhere and gave a political speech, and a bunch of rabble took umbrage and decided to riot, that does not make the speech of Donald Trump a crime. The rioters commit a criminal act.

"The statute of Nebraska preventing and punishing the desecration of the flag of the United States and prohibiting the sale of articles upon which there is a representation of the flag for advertising purposes is not unconstitutional..." - Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907)

Halter was brought under the 14th Amendment regarding use of the flag in advertising, and not as a case of individual free speech. The court ruled, "we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/205/34/case.html

U.S. Supreme Court

Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907)

Halter v. Nebraska

No. 174

Submitted January 23, 1907

Decided March 4, 1907

[excerpts]

The act, among other things, makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, for anyone to sell, expose for sale, or have in possession for sale, any article of merchandise upon which shall have been printed or placed, for purposes of advertisement, a representation of the flag of the United States. It expressly excepted, however, from its operation any newspaper, periodical, book, etc., on which should be printed, painted, or placed a representation of the flag "disconnected from any advertisement." 1 Cobbey's Ann.Stat.Neb. 1903, c. 139.

The plaintiffs in error were proceeded against by criminal information upon the charge of having, in violation of the statute, unlawfully exposed to public view, sold, exposed for sale, and had in their possession for sale a bottle of beer upon which, for purposes of advertisement, was printed and painted a representation of the flag of the United States.

Page 205 U. S. 39

The defendants pleaded not guilty, and at the trial insisted that the statute in question was null and void as infringing their personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and depriving them, as citizens of the United States, of the right of exercising a privilege impliedly, if not expressly, guaranteed by the federal Constitution; also that the statute was invalid in that it permitted the use of the flag by publishers, newspapers, books, periodicals, etc., under certain circumstances, thus, it was alleged, discriminating in favor of one class and against others. These contentions were overruled, and the defendants, having been found guilty by a jury, were severally adjudged to pay a fine of $50 and the costs of the prosecution. Upon writ of error, the judgments were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Nebraska, and the case has been brought here upon the ground that the final order in that court deprived the defendants, respectively, or rights specially set up and claimed under the Constitution of the United States.

It may be well at the outset to say that Congress has established no regulation as to the use of the flag, except that in the act approved February 20th, 1905, authorizing the registration of trademarks in commerce with foreign nations and among the states, it was provided that no mark shall be refused as a trademark on account of its nature

"unless such mark . . . consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or any simulation thereof, or of any state or municipality, or of any foreign nation." 33 Stat. 724, § 5.

- - - - - - - - - -

By the statute in question, the state has in substance declared that no one subject to its jurisdiction shall use the flag for purposes of trade and traffic -- a purpose wholly foreign to that for which it was provided by the nation. Such a use tends to degrade and cheapen the flag in the estimation of the people, as well as to defeat the object of maintaining it as an emblem of national power and national honor. And we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer. It is familiar law that even the privileges of citizenship and the rights inhering in personal liberty are subject, in their enjoyment, to such reasonable restraints as may be required for the general good. Nor can we hold that anyone has a right of property which is violated by such an enactment as the one in question. If it be said that there is a right of property

Page 205 U. S. 43

in the tangible thing upon which a representation of the flag has been placed, the answer is that such representation -- which, in itself, cannot belong, as property, to an individual -- has been placed on such thing in violation of law, and subject to the power of government to prohibit its use for purposes of advertisement.

Walter B. Jones is still in the HOR, and retains his seat on the Armed Services Committee, in spite of Boehner removing him from others. At 73 years old, he still refuses to tow the party line. He's also a member of the Liberty Caucus.

Some people never learn. ;)

True,but it has mostly been the alleged Republican Party that has made a determined effort to keep him in the background. Have you ever seen him on one of the Sunday political talk shows?

The area where the USMC base named Camp LeJune is located in is in Jones district,and he actually appeared before an assembly of Marines on the base and gave an anti-Iraq invasion speech before the invasion happened,and I read on the web the report from the local paper that said the Marines gave him a standing ovation for doing so. I stood up and gave him a standing ovation myself when reading about it. I have been hoping ever since that he would run for president.

I am guessing that was the only newspaper that wrote about this.

You're liberal,

Thanks! So were Thomas Jefferson,Ben Franklin,and George Washington.

"If Donald Trump went somewhere and gave a political speech, and a bunch of rabble took umbrage and decided to riot, that does not make the speech of Donald Trump a crime."

Depends on the content and the intent of that speech.

But burning the flag is done intentionally to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.

Political speech is protected. Hate speech is not necessarily political speech and can be made for the purpose of creating a disturbance.

I think that even you will admit that is one VERY blurry line.

But burning the flag is done intentionally to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.

Burning a flag is done as a form of political expression and all you just said has been repeatedly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Frequently, the very purpose of protected political expression is to provoke a reaction. If someone decides to indulge themselves in a breach of the peace or other lawless action, they are the one committing the criminal action.

If a nitwit at a Trump rally was incited to some nitwittery, they did not arrest Donald Trump and remove him from the venue.

I think that even you will admit that is one VERY blurry line.

It certainly can be. But if someone is arrested for burning a flag, it is almost guaranteed that his attorney will argue that it was political expression. It would be a real challenge to show that there was no political intent.

A law prohibiting flag burning per se, prohibits political expression.

Hate speech has a nebulous character. Nowadays, it seems snowflakes call anything they do not like hate speech, and they run off to their safe space.

You're liberal, Thanks! So were Thomas Jefferson,Ben Franklin,and George Washington.

lol

They were classical liberals.

You're a leftist liberal 75 percent of the time.

You're a leftist liberal 75 percent of the time.

Only from the POV of a dogmatic loon.

As I keep saying over and over,and over,and over......,We are either ALL free,or NONE of us are free.

It is such a simple concept I honestly can't understand how anyone could not understand it. A government that has the authority to monitor and punish MY thoughts,words,and political deeds,also has the authority to monitor and punish YOUR thoughts,words,and political deeds.

And if they can,they will. It is the nature of ALL governments EVERYWHERE to seize all the power they can seize in order to stay in power. Free Speech is the most important tool we citizens have to use to prevent that from happening here.

What's it going to take -- someone getting injured or killed burning the flag?

We are either ALL free,or NONE of us are free.

No problem with that.

I just disagree with you that Floyd Mayweather should be on the woman's olynmpic boxing team.

That doesn't make him any less equal and free if he isn't allowed.

"A law prohibiting flag burning per se, prohibits political expression."

States ban cross burning and there's no constitutional crisis. Flag burning can be banned for the same reason -- the intent is to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.