'No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment’

The president president can by executive decision, and he has the guns to back him up.

There are people and philosophies in this world that deserve to be hated. Giving voice to that hatred is not to be prohibited. There are worse things than hate speach. One of them is to succumb to compliance and repression by not pointing it out.

president can [burn the First Amendment] by executive decision

That's treason and Trump should be impeached, tried, and beheaded by ISIS McCain, if he does it.

It would require a Constitutional amendment to make America, like North Korea.

Apple and oranges. Burning the American flag is not the same as a political editorial or a political speech. So you can stop trying to convince me that there's no difference.

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

According to the court, it is protected just the same. If you are offended, and you injure or kill someone, you will be the one going to prison.

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.

That is the law as you want it to be. The law that is, is the law as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The have been a few attempts to amend the Constitution to make desecrating the flag a crime. One attempt passed in the House but failed in the Senate.

Another Scotus opinion can change it, an amendment can change it, a blog post cannot.

The president president can by executive decision, and he has the guns to back him up.

No president is legally authorized, but he has the power if the army will obey the unlawful order. The Lincoln administration used the army to smash printing presses.

No president is legally authorized, but he has the power if the army will obey the unlawful order.

Legally means nothing to Obama & Company. They've already committed enough crimes to be hung and gotten away with it.

"That is the law as you want it to be."

That is the law if it were consistently applied. If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected.

You're so focused on the action you're ignoring the consequences. Worse, you fault those offended by the action.

"It would require a Constitutional amendment ..."

Nope. Just call it hate speech. Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment. Game over.

Just call it hate speech. Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment.

Really?

In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) the issue of freedom to express hatred arose again when a gang of white people burned a cross in the front yard of a black family. The local ordinance in St. Paul, Minnesota, criminalized such racist and hate-filled expressions and the teenager was charged thereunder.

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Supreme Court, held that the prohibition against hate speech was unconstitutional as it contravened the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the ordinance.

Scalia explicated the fighting words exception as follows: “The reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey”.

Because the hate speech ordinance was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech. Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence.

The opinion noted "This conduct, if proved, might well have violated various Minnesota laws against arson, criminal damage to property", among a number of others, none of which was charged, including threats to any person, not to only protected classes.

In 2011, the Supreme Court issued their ruling on Snyder v. Phelps, which concerned the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest with signs found offensive by many Americans.

The issue presented was whether the 1st Amendment protected the expressions written on the signs. In an 8–1 decision the court sided with Phelps, the head of Westboro Baptist Church, thereby confirming their historically strong protection of hate speech, so long as it doesn't promote imminent violence.

The Court explained, "speech deals with matters of public concern when it can 'be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community' or when it 'is a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public."

Game over.

"Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."

That's what I've been saying about burning the flag. If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected.

Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment

Wrong. It's the stuff you don't like that really needs that protection.

Hate speech is not protected under the first amendment.
Wrong.

Right.

"Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."

Halter was brought under the 14th Amendment regarding use of the flag in advertising, and not as a case of individual free speech.

Dear Shit for Brains:

Advertising is speech.

"Thus, the Supreme Court embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence."

You got to give him credit. He excels at foot shots.

If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected.

"IF".

That is the law if it were consistently applied. If the intent and the result of the action incites an immediate breach of the peace it should not be constitutionally protected.

No. If one engages in political speech, as did Donald Trump, and some asshole or group of assholes decide to breach the peace or engage in riotous behavior, as some assholes did, it is the assholes who have committed the criminal offense. The speaker cannot be held criminally liable for what some hotheaded, or intolerant asshole will do in response to protected free speech.

If Gary Great wears a MAGA hat, and Arnie Asshole punches him in the face, Gary has committed no criminal offense, Arnie has.

I do not fault anyone for being offended. I fault them for responding with unlawful actions such as disturbing the peace, committing assault, or rioting.

Dear Shit for Brains:

Advertising is speech.

Advertising using the U.S. flag on a beer bottle is not protected free speech.

The court clearly stated: "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."

Which part are you having difficulty understanding. It's the court opinion YOU cited. You should have tried reading it, shit for brains.

Legally means nothing to Obama & Company.

It is just the difference between being legally authorized and simply usurping authority where legal authority is lacking.

"If one engages in political speech, as did Donald Trump..."

... and if his speech intended and resulted in an immediate breach of the peace then he should be held liable.

"I do not fault anyone for being offended."

But that's where you're placing 100% of the blame. I should have asked the question earlier -- Does the first amendment protect all speech or is there some speech that is not protected?

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

When and where have I ever made such a claim? The Olympics is not a government,and they have the right to establish any set of rules they want to establish.

In the FREE COUNTRY that America was CREATED to be,INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS had the undisputed right to discriminate against anyone and everyone they wanted to discriminate against BECAUSE THEY ARE PRIVATE CITIZENS,NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

It's the GOVERNMENT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CITIZENS,and the feral government of today seems to do little that isn't discriminating against white people. Especially white males.

I think flag burning is protected "speech'.

Then our laws against hate speech and sexual harassment should be repealed. Time for everyone to suck it up.

BINGO! Give the man a cigar!

If you don't like seeing or hearing what someone is doing,you have the right to turn around and walk away,or to get in their faces and tell them what's making you unhappy.

protected free speech.

Protected by who, shit for brains?

When and where have I ever made such a claim?

Oh so you are a hypocrite on what you said earlier. It's ok a lot of people are inconsistent. TO bad you're inconsistent in the evil direction.

"I do not fault anyone for being offended."

But that's where you're placing 100% of the blame. I should have asked the question earlier -- Does the first amendment protect all speech or is there some speech that is not protected?

I did not place the blame. I cited and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly placing the blame and gave you multiple examples which you can only ignore. When Donald Trump proclaimed an intent to build a wall, and the liberal nutbags proceded to break the law, Donald Trump was not the criminal.

Some speech is not protected, the classic example being shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. That has nothing to do with the specific example of burning a flag which has been directly and explicitly resolved, for legal purposes, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

You do not have to like or approve of the opinion of the court, but what they say matters. It can be reversed by bringing another case before the court and having the court overturn its prior decisions, or by amending the Constitution.

Disagreeing with Roe v. Wade or Obergefell does not make abortion or same-sex marriage illegal.

protected free speech.

Protected by who, shit for brains?

At your #37, YOU cited and quoted a 1907 opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court as precedent. According to the precedent YOU cited, and from which you quoted, using the U.S. flag on bottles of beer for advertising purposes is not protected free speech. The case you cited was not a 1st Amendment case at all. It was brought under the 14th Amendment which you would have known if you had bothered to read it.

As had been demonstrated in my #6, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) indicates,

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.

Flag burning constituting expressive conduct is protected by the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) is the prevailing precedent on flag burning. The happy horseshit you posted was a 14th Amendment case about using the U.S. flag as advertising on beer bottles.

When and where have I ever made such a claim?

Oh so you are a hypocrite on what you said earlier. It's ok a lot of people are inconsistent. TO bad you're inconsistent in the evil direction.

In that case it should be easy for you to produce quotes from me.

Do it,or STFU about it.

using the U.S. flag on bottles of beer for advertising purposes is not protected free speech.

Not protected by who, shit for brains?

Not protected by who, shit for brains?

Assholes on the internet with diarrhea of the mouth.

"I did not place the blame."

Person "A" does something offensive. Person "B" reacts. You place 100% of the blame on person "B" and ignore person "A"'s actions which instigated the confrontation.

Yes. You did place the blame.

"I cited and quoted the U.S. Supreme Court"

So? Everyone knows how the U.S. Supreme Court ruled. If you believe their word is the final word and that's the sum and substance of your argument, why are we even discussing the issue?

"Not protected by who, shit for brains?"

You can ask and ask and he'll never get it. So it's lesson time.

Back in 1907, before the 14th amendment was perverted by activist judges, the Bill of Rights first amendment did NOT apply to the states. Gasp!

Meaning that states were allowed to pass any laws they wished restricting any activity mentioned by the first amendment.

Oh how I long for the days of a federal republic.

Assholes on the internet with diarrhea of the mouth.

IOW, you.

You can ask and ask and he'll never get it.

Shit-For-Brain's disengenous passive voice evasions and ambiguous terms are all too predictable.

You can ask and ask and he'll never get it.

Seems to me that you two clowns don't get it - flag burning has been ruled by SCOTUS as protected speech.

I suggest you both sober up and stop whining about it.

Still terrified to quote the Court, I see.

Read the thread simpleton.

When the Supreme Court ruled to allow American flag burning

On June 21, 1989, a deeply divided United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters to burn the American flag in a landmark First Amendment decision.

In the controversial Texas v. Johnson case, the Court voted 5-4 in favor of Gregory Lee Johnson, the protester. Johnson’s actions, the majority argued, were symbolic speech political in nature and could be expressed even at the affront of those who disagreed with him.

Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia concurring.  “Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,” said Brennan. “Nor does the State’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing a concurrence, spelled out his reasoning succinctly.

“The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result,” Kennedy said. “And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.

In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag at the Republican National Convention in Dallas. Officials in Texas arrested Johnson and convicted him of breaking a state law; he was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.

In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” said Justice William Brennan.

Now crawl back in your hole.

Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct.

Expressive conduct, whatever that is. Not speech. You really should try reading your cut and pastes.

Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct.

Expressive conduct, whatever that is. Not speech. You really should try reading your cut and pastes.

Maybe you should learn to read the entire post instead of cherry-picking the sentences that you delusionally believe bolster your case.

In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.

1. The word "speech" doesn't even appear in the quote.

2. It's not a quote from the decision.

Be careful not to set yourself on fire at your next flag burning.

1. The word "speech" doesn't even appear in the quote.

The Court found that, "Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.

... 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." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."

The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."

You will never accept the fact that flag burning has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS, so we're done here.

"the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."

Conduct, not speech. Nice foot shot!

When you and your cronies expressively wiggle your dinkies in front of an elementary school, that's not speech either.

Conduct, not speech.

Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase "elements of communication"?

The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Fucking moron.

Do you not understand the meaning of the phrase "elements of communication"?

Do you understand the meaning of the word "ambiguous"?

SCOTUS has settled the issue - just deal with it.

The 5/4 decision doesn't even say flag burning is speech.

WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?

Your hatred of our Constitution

Your hatred of free speech is deplorable.

WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Anything else I can help you with?

"WTF do you think the First Amendment protects?"

Nude dancing.

Nude dancing.

And street riots (aka uprisings, fka looting).