Air Force vet arrested for trying to stop flag desecration

[Tekania]

There is no unspoken duty to interfere in others' freedom of speech. She was arrested for interfering in a legal protest. That is justice.

Nobody was being harmed by the protest. Being offended is not a harm, which I would expect a soldier in the service of the United States to understand. Provocation is no excuse for dishonorable behavior. Soldiers and officers alike are held to a higher standard of behavior.

Its never dishonorable to protect one's flag.

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

[Dyakovo]

I don't get the point of this kind of thinking. There's no point having freedoms if using them is wrong.

I'm sorry, "From my view" meaning my morals. I'm not discussing this further as I'm a 17 year old in high school with a fairly limited view of the entire world. Debate my post amongst yourselves if you wish.

If you're unwilling to debate, why are you here?

[Scandinavian Nations]

People have a constitutionally protected right to desecrate the US flag.

Some might wish they had, but they don't. There's no protected right to desecrate the US flag. The court found that the state had no right to convict him for doing so - but there's a lot of things the state can't convict you for, and they do not automatically become protected rights.

Texas v. Johnson concluded that:

We must first determine whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. See, e.g., Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-411 (1974). If his conduct was expressive, we next decide whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression. See, e.g., United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968); Spence, supra, at 414, n. 8. If the State's regulation is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard we announced in United States v. O'Brien for regulations of noncommunicative conduct controls. See O'Brien, supra, at 377. If it is, then we are outside of O'Brien's test, and we must ask whether this interest justifies Johnson's conviction under a more demanding standard.

We have not automatically concluded, however, that any action taken with respect to our flag is expressive.

We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.

We perceive no basis on which to hold that the principle underlying our decision in Schacht does not apply to this case. To conclude that the government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries. Could the government, on this theory, prohibit the burning of state flags? Of copies of the Presidential seal? Of the Constitution? In evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status?

I.e., the SC concluded that the flag could not have special significance in law and its burning could not be treated by law differently from e.g. the burning of a piece of white paper.

Not only has it never been established as a protected right, the court did not rule on the desecration of the flag as a whole. It ruled on the desecration of the flag as a means of expression, and ruled that the state had no right to punish it.

The state has no right to punish X is a far cry from X is a protected right no one may interfere in. For an absurd example, the state has no right to punish men for wearing pink skirts - but it is not a protected right, so an employer can enforce a dress code banning such, a retailer may refuse to sell such, and so on.

[Ifreann]

I don't get the point of this kind of thinking. There's no point having freedoms if using them is wrong.

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't make everything you do with that right morally right. I have the right to spew racist crap about blacks. I can say, "Those dirty niggers defile our country!" and all other sorts of horrible things. Maybe I'll also go buy some Korans and burn them in public while spitting on a picture of Obama.

I have a right to do that, but that doesn't mean I'm morally in the right. Nor should I not expect to get punched in the face for it.

You really should expect not to get punched in the face for it.

---

Its never dishonorable to protect one's flag.

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

Oooh, duck.

[The 502nd SS]

Its never dishonorable to protect one's flag.

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

I didn't read any thing about anyone being harmed

[Kernen]

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

Oooh, duck.

Join the Military, break the Law, get free Duck!

Damn, we should start putting that on the recruiting commercials right after the Marine fights the dragon in his Class A's.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Maybe I'll also go buy some Korans and burn them in public while spitting on a picture of Obama.

It sickens me that some would consider doing so any more inappropriate than burning the US flag. Maybe that will change after a few more... but let's not derail the thread.

[Tekeristan]

I don't really mind what they do to a flag.
It's just a flag.

[Ifreann]

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

I didn't read any thing about anyone being harmed

Tekania is talking about what another poster claimed they would do if they saw the US flag being desecrated, not what actually happened in this case. Farn has gently nudged us away from talking about that poster and back on topic.

[LOLAF]

Look, my fellow Americans. Our country is fucking evil. What the hell is with this, "The protesters were legally right and morally wrong" shit? Every single member of our government is a douchebag. Every single one of them. And at least 50% of our citizens. There are a million reasons to hate our country and want to symbolically destroy it. I don't even know what this protest was for and I feel like we deserved it. I'm sure each and every one of you can think of a good reason to hate the U.S. Probably even at least 5. The bottom line is I'm sure the protesters were morally justified in what they did, our country sucks, get off your high horses.

[Dyakovo]

People have a constitutionally protected right to desecrate the US flag.

Some might wish they had, but they don't. There's no protected right to desecrate the US flag. The court found that the state had no right to convict him for doing so - but there's a lot of things the state can't convict you for, and they do not automatically become protected rights.

Texas v. Johnson concluded that:

We must first determine whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. See, e.g., Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-411 (1974). If his conduct was expressive, we next decide whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression. See, e.g., United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968); Spence, supra, at 414, n. 8. If the State's regulation is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard we announced in United States v. O'Brien for regulations of noncommunicative conduct controls. See O'Brien, supra, at 377. If it is, then we are outside of O'Brien's test, and we must ask whether this interest justifies Johnson's conviction under a more demanding standard.

Freedom of expression is one of the rights granted by the first amendment, desecrating the flag is a valid form of doing so.
You can dislike it all you want, this does not, however, change the fact that it is perfectly legal.

We have not automatically concluded, however, that any action taken with respect to our flag is expressive.

We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment.

We perceive no basis on which to hold that the principle underlying our decision in Schacht does not apply to this case. To conclude that the government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries. Could the government, on this theory, prohibit the burning of state flags? Of copies of the Presidential seal? Of the Constitution? In evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status?

I.e., the SC concluded that the flag could not have special significance in law and its burning could not be treated by law differently from e.g. the burning of a piece of white paper.

Not only has it never been established as a protected right, the court did not rule on the desecration of the flag as a whole. It ruled on the desecration of the flag as a means of expression, and ruled that the state had no right to punish it.

The state has no right to punish X is a far cry from X is a protected right no one may interfere in. For an absurd example, the state has no right to punish men for wearing pink skirts - but it is not a protected right, so an employer can enforce a dress code banning such, a retailer may refuse to sell such, and so on.

[Scandinavian Nations]

The bottom line is I'm sure the protesters were morally justified in what they did, our country sucks

And they're not letting you move out?

Out of curiosity, which country doesn't were you planning to move to once they give you your passport?

[Dyakovo]

Just because you have a right to do something doesn't make everything you do with that right morally right. I have the right to spew racist crap about blacks. I can say, "Those dirty niggers defile our country!" and all other sorts of horrible things. Maybe I'll also go buy some Korans and burn them in public while spitting on a picture of Obama.

I have a right to do that, but that doesn't mean I'm morally in the right. Nor should I not expect to get punched in the face for it.

You really should expect not to get punched in the face for it.

---

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

Oooh, duck.

Yeah... "Duck dinner" is US military slang for "Dishonorable Discharge"...

[Dyakovo]

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

I didn't read any thing about anyone being harmed

Theft harms the victim by depriving them of their property, so... Yes, you actually did.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What if one of these values is the value of freedom of expression?

Civilised people don't have to destroy things or tramp on flag to get their point across. Freedom of expression means that they can use words too.

Freedom of expression means that they don't have to, and can express themselves in any manner that does not run direct the risk of harm for others.

[Kernen]

Look, my fellow Americans. Our country is fucking evil. What the hell is with this, "The protesters were legally right and morally wrong" shit? Every single member of our government is a douchebag. Every single one of them. And at least 50% of our citizens. There are a million reasons to hate our country and want to symbolically destroy it. I don't even know what this protest was for and I feel like we deserved it. I'm sure each and every one of you can think of a good reason to hate the U.S. Probably even at least 5. The bottom line is I'm sure the protesters were morally justified in what they did, our country sucks, get off your high horses.

Cannot think of a single one. While you're welcome to stay as a US citizen and express your opinions, I'm positive that there are other nations that will happily accept your emigration if you really dislike the United States so greatly.

[Oceanic people]

What she should have done was take good, clear head shots of everyone who walked on the flag. Been obvious about it. Eventually, they would have attacked her and she could then have had THEM arrested!

No, she couldn't have. Desecration of the US flag is not illegal.

It's not 'illegal' to desecrate the flag that so many have given their lives to protect, support and defend. Nor should it be: they, WE, fought to give them that right....

On the other hand, those who show such disrespect and contempt should be proud of themselves, proud to be identified and held up to public scrutiny. And THAT, my friend, is the rub! They are not 'proud' of themselves or anything else! They're gutless cowards and the moment they thought that those pictures might be used against them in some way....

[Kernen]

It's not 'illegal' to desecrate the flag that so many have given their lives to protect, support and defend. Nor should it be: they, WE, fought to give them that right....

On the other hand, those who show such disrespect and contempt should be proud of themselves, proud to be identified and held up to public scrutiny. And THAT, my friend, is the rub! They are not 'proud' of themselves or anything else! They're gutless cowards and the moment they thought that those pictures might be used against them in some way....

Several of them are quite proud. That's why they did this in public without masks.

It takes a lot of guts to protest your own home. The gutless coward comment isn't really warranted.

Also, I'm not your friend, guy.

[Tekania]

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

Oooh, duck.[/quote]

This type of duck dinner is not generally satisfying to the recipient.

[Twilight Imperium]

Look, my fellow Americans. Our country is fucking evil. What the hell is with this, "The protesters were legally right and morally wrong" shit? Every single member of our government is a douchebag. Every single one of them. And at least 50% of our citizens. There are a million reasons to hate our country and want to symbolically destroy it. I don't even know what this protest was for and I feel like we deserved it. I'm sure each and every one of you can think of a good reason to hate the U.S. Probably even at least 5. The bottom line is I'm sure the protesters were morally justified in what they did, our country sucks, get off your high horses.

Cannot think of a single one. While you're welcome to stay as a US citizen and express your opinions, I'm positive that there are other nations that will happily accept your emigration if you really dislike the United States so greatly.

We're kind of awful about racism on the national level. Yes, we've made some good steps, but there's a long way to go. There's also a case to be made that we're far too lenient on abortion. That's one from each side of the aisle without even really trying.

[Tekania]

Honor is protecting the principals upon what the flag stands upon..... beating up protestors is treason, and if you did I will look forward to your time in leavenworth as well as being sripped of rank and given a nice duck dinner.

I didn't read any thing about anyone being harmed

Let me respond to that with a quote:

I would beat the shit out of anyone I saw trying to desecrate the American flag, no questions asked. If you are American, you don't burn the flag of the country you belong to, the country you owe everything to.

[Grenartia]

They were targeted by an extremist. As to the rest if you respond violently to other people exercising their freedom of expression, the problem is with you, not them.

An Air Force veteran who found 1. such disgraceful desecration of the symbol of our freedom offensive, and 2. decided to try to stop such actions peacefully, is an extremist?

1. Standing up against "disgraceful desecration". In reference to a woman who posed for naked photos with at least 2 Flag Code violations. Lel.

2. She stole property that wasn't hers. That's not peaceful.

EDIT: Clarified a phrase.

[Kernen]

Cannot think of a single one. While you're welcome to stay as a US citizen and express your opinions, I'm positive that there are other nations that will happily accept your emigration if you really dislike the United States so greatly.

We're kind of awful about racism on the national level. Yes, we've made some good steps, but there's a long way to go. There's also a case to be made that we're far too lenient on abortion. That's one from each side of the aisle without even really trying.

Neither of which are the topic on hand, but that we have racist individuals is a silly reason to hate the country entirely.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I'm not just being contrariety here, I personally believe the university should hold a flag burning event in protest. Flag burning is most definitely covered under that most essential of liberties, freedom of speech. You cannot assign arbitrary and random cutoff points for free expression, it deliberately protects the right to be offensive. Freedom of speech was never created to guarantee people the right to follow the mainline political opinions. It was theorized with the most controversial of opinions in mind, those that people seek to punish for expressing, or prevent from being heard at all. This veteran is clearly in the wrong here, and perhaps should take some time to really educate themselves on what the liberties they were supposedly protecting actually mean.

[Twilight Imperium]

We're kind of awful about racism on the national level. Yes, we've made some good steps, but there's a long way to go. There's also a case to be made that we're far too lenient on abortion. That's one from each side of the aisle without even really trying.

Neither of which are the topic on hand, but that we have racist individuals is a silly reason to hate the country entirely.

I meant the more ingrained, institutional stuff. But fair enough.