"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Then our laws against hate speech and sexual harassment should be repealed.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).

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

Ok if you want to go there.

You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.

But you are not ok with some faggot not being to do what some women do.

Faggots are immoral not born that way. You're immoral too. That is a fact.

You're also a hypocrite and want special privileges for sex offenders.

Don't go making any pro faggot remarks. Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

You need to change the LF Banner:

Welcome to Liberty's Flame

Welcome to Liberty's Flame, an online meeting place for liberty minded people to discuss any and all national and international current events. There will be discussions about our rights under the constitution and rights endowed to us from our creator. The new world order, Bush's wars, government corruption and the coming cashless society will also be included on the discussion boards. Foreign invasions threatening our nation and its culture. Guns, primitive weapons and outdoor survival will also have discussion boards. A "how to" board as well as boards for business and education. Any 9/11 related news and articles. A Bible discussion board for discussion and Bible study. Also for those users interested we'll also have a place for you to submit your own articles. Also a discussion area to leak documents. The discussion boards are not limited to the topics listed; any news that one feels needs to be discussed is welcome at Liberty's Flame. This site was built upon the idea of free speech so everyone is welcome to come and discuss and debate the issues on hand.

Otherwise you will be known as a hypocrite.

You don't think Mayweather should be allowed to do what women do.

Name ONE woman that is a professional heavyweight boxer.

But you are not ok with some faggot not being to do what some women do.

Which is.....?

Faggots are immoral not born that way. You're immoral too. That is a fact.

No,it's religious dogma,which is nothing more than historic superstition.

You're also a hypocrite and want special privileges for sex offenders.

Either name the special privileges or admit you are a liar.

Don't go making any pro faggot remarks. Pro faggot remarks are greeted with bannings.

The sooner you come out of the closet and admit you are bi-sexual or homosexual,the happier you will be. You may even be happy for the first time in your life. Assuming of course you are not one of those people who are never happy unless they are unhappy. Most of those people vote Dim,though.

BTW,it is you and Fire Island who are ALWAYS the ones that bring up the issue of homosexuality here,not me. You might want to spend a little time wondering why that is the case.

Are you pimping for your faggot friends again?

You can tell your pimp to not worry. Nobody is trying to take you away from him,Princess.

You best live by yourself in the woods like the kook Uni bomber.

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?

Because their opinion states what the law actually is and is enforceable, as distinguished from your misguided ruminations which are not the law and are not enforceable against anyone, no matter how much you insist on repeating your meaningless blather.

As you certify that you know that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent is, you have no valid excuse.

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!

Back in 1869 the 14th Amendment was passed. It went into effect 38 years before 1907. The 1907 case was a 14th Amendment case. It did not set a first amendment precedent then, and it is uncitable for such purpose now.

IOW, you.

No, the dumb asshole who cited a 1907 14th Amendment case as a 21st century precedent on the First Amendment, after having the actual prevailing precedent cited and quoted.

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

The world is coming to an end. Deckard and I are in perfect agreement.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (see #6) is a First Amendment case, directly on point about flag burning.

Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907) (see #37) is not a First Amendment case and it is not on point about flag burning. It is a 14th Amendment case concerning commercial advertising on beer bottles.

Even if Halter could be magically construed to be a First Amendment case related to flag burning, it could still not be cited as precedent over the more recent case, Johnson. Halter is irrelevant to the discussion, as are the irrelevant pictures of beer cans.

JUSTICE SCALIA ON FLAG-BURNING

http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/watch-antonin-scalia-flag-burning-donald-trump-video-justice-say-about-first-amendment-freedom-of-speech/

“If I were king, I wouldn’t go about letting people burn the American flag,” Scalia told Piers Morgan in the above interview. “However, we have a First Amendment which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged, and it is addressed, in particular to speech critical of the government. I mean, that was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”

“Burning the flag is a form of expression,” Scalia continued. He later added that burning a flag is an action that “expresses an idea.”

Scalia made similar comments over the years, referring to people who burn flags as “weirdos.”

“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king,” Scalia said at Princeton University in 2015.

In his tweet, Trump showed that he disagrees with that. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail,” Trump wrote.

Scalia, who died in February 2016, was on the U.S. Supreme Court when two cases centering on flag burning came up – Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990). In both cases, Scalia voted to protect flag burning as a form of protected free speech and agreed with the majority opinions written by William J. Brennan Jr. The 1989 case overturned a Texas state statue that banned the burning of the flag, while the 1990 case overturned the Flag Protection Act.