Air Force vet arrested for trying to stop flag desecration

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Burning a flag? Free speech!!!
Hate speech? Free speech!!! nevermind..

amirite

[Dyakovo]

Burning a flag? Free speech!!!
Hate speech? Free speech!!! nevermind..

amirite

Yes.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Well she apparently thinks she's excused from theft, causing a disturbance, and resisting arrest and can't seem to understand why she was arrested.
What I don't understand is why no charges are filed.

I think Risottia was correct to call it "robbery" rather than "theft". They're subtly different, but robbery involves a confrontation, use of force, or threat of force. Whereas picking a pocket or stealing an unattended car would more properly be called theft.

This was blatant. And though at first she may have thought she was rescuing someone else's property (eg, the United States' property) it becomes clearly robbery when she is instructed by police to drop it and held on.

disclaimer: *nothing* becomes clearly *anything* when cops whisper magic words, whatever those may be

being told by a cop to cut it off doesn't magically turn me slapping you from assault into 1st degree murder

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, she doesn't. Desecration of the flag is a constitutionally protected form of expression. Using violence to stop people from exercising their rights is never appropriate, and the fact that you would do so as a member of the armed forces says that you are a disgrace to your service. You swore an oath to defend the constitution, you should consider trying to abide by your oath.

I stand by my oath, I protect and serve my country. I draw the line at protecting people who desecrate the symbol of the nation I swore to protect.

This is the oath that you took, right?

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Here's something interesting: You took no oath to protect the flag. You did swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As flag burning is a constitutionally protected act, you would actually be violating your oath if you forcibly kept anyone from burning the flag. However, were you to protect the burners from someone attempting to steal the flag, you would actually be fulfilling said oath.

I know, irony abounds. However, that's what happens when you actually get to the nitty-gritty of what freedom means, of the difficulties of knowing that it doesn't just apply to you, but also to the people you disagree with. It's hard work, or, as one fictitious president said, "America is advanced citizenship". You have to work for it. You have to not just stand up and say "This is what I believe, and I will defend it to the death". You have to be able to point to the guy on the other side of the aisle and say "I disagree with everything that comes out of this person's mouth, but if you try to keep him from speaking his piece, I'll defend his rights to the death." You have to be able to respect the rights of Klan members, communists, LGBT activists, anti-gay groups, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians. If someone believes in lowering the age of consent to five, you can rail against them all that you want to (and I'll be right by your side doing the same), but you have to respect their right to at least make the case. Anything short of that, and you're at best a bystander on the road to freedom, or worse, a roadblock.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Burning a flag? Free speech!!!
Hate speech? Free speech!!! nevermind..

amirite

Yes.

it only makes sense, really.

why have standards when you can have DOUBLE standards!

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I stand by my oath, I protect and serve my country. I draw the line at protecting people who desecrate the symbol of the nation I swore to protect.

This is the oath that you took, right?

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Here's something interesting: You took no oath to protect the flag. You did swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As flag burning is a constitutionally protected act, you would actually be violating your oath if you forcibly kept anyone from burning the flag. However, were you to protect the burners from someone attempting to steal the flag, you would actually be fulfilling said oath.

I know, irony abounds. However, that's what happens when you actually get to the nitty-gritty of what freedom means, of the difficulties of knowing that it doesn't just apply to you, but also to the people you disagree with. It's hard work, or, as one fictitious president said, "America is advanced citizenship". You have to work for it. You have to not just stand up and say "This is what I believe, and I will defend it to the death". You have to be able to point to the guy on the other side of the aisle and say "I disagree with everything that comes out of this person's mouth, but if you try to keep him from speaking his piece, I'll defend his rights to the death." You have to be able to respect the rights of Klan members, communists, LGBT activists, anti-gay groups, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians. If someone believes in lowering the age of consent to five, you can rail against them all that you want to (and I'll be right by your side doing the same), but you have to respect their right to at least make the case. Anything short of that, and you're at best a bystander on the road to freedom, or worse, a roadblock.

i will find you and i will marry you and our children will spread much brilliance and common sense into this empty world

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

it only makes sense, really.

why have standards when you can have DOUBLE standards!

There are no hate speech laws in America that I'm aware of.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yes.

it only makes sense, really.

why have standards when you can have DOUBLE standards!

Two standards for the price of one!

Seriously, though, "hate speech" has been used to describe various forms of speech from mild racial stereotyping to outright threats of lynching. Could you be more specific?

[Delkora]

Swearing at a police officer is a crime because it's a breach of the peace.
It's not even (necessarily) from swearing at the officer, it's from swearing in public generally.

False. Swearing at a cop doesn't constitute a breach of the peace. You have to say something that will likely incite immediate violence (e.g. yelling "attack that cop" during a riot).

[Yumyumsuppertime]

This is the oath that you took, right?



Here's something interesting: You took no oath to protect the flag. You did swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. As flag burning is a constitutionally protected act, you would actually be violating your oath if you forcibly kept anyone from burning the flag. However, were you to protect the burners from someone attempting to steal the flag, you would actually be fulfilling said oath.

I know, irony abounds. However, that's what happens when you actually get to the nitty-gritty of what freedom means, of the difficulties of knowing that it doesn't just apply to you, but also to the people you disagree with. It's hard work, or, as one fictitious president said, "America is advanced citizenship". You have to work for it. You have to not just stand up and say "This is what I believe, and I will defend it to the death". You have to be able to point to the guy on the other side of the aisle and say "I disagree with everything that comes out of this person's mouth, but if you try to keep him from speaking his piece, I'll defend his rights to the death." You have to be able to respect the rights of Klan members, communists, LGBT activists, anti-gay groups, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians. If someone believes in lowering the age of consent to five, you can rail against them all that you want to (and I'll be right by your side doing the same), but you have to respect their right to at least make the case. Anything short of that, and you're at best a bystander on the road to freedom, or worse, a roadblock.

i will find you and i will marry you and our children will spread much brilliance and common sense into this empty world

Neat, but I'll have to ask my wife's permission first.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

it only makes sense, really.

why have standards when you can have DOUBLE standards!

Two standards for the price of one!

Seriously, though, "hate speech" has been used to describe various forms of speech from mild racial stereotyping to outright threats of lynching. Could you be more specific?

Incitement to violence is where I draw the line. It has to be clear and direct, though. You'd be surprised to find out what sort of mindboggling rhetoric people come up with to justify banning or restricting speech they don't like.

[Dyakovo]

Yes.

it only makes sense, really.

why have standards when you can have DOUBLE standards!

There is no double standard.

[Imperializt Russia]

Swearing at a police officer is a crime because it's a breach of the peace.
It's not even (necessarily) from swearing at the officer, it's from swearing in public generally.

False. Swearing at a cop doesn't constitute a breach of the peace. You have to say something that will likely incite immediate violence (e.g. yelling "attack that cop" during a riot).

Public order then.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

it only makes sense, really.

why have standards when you can have DOUBLE standards!

There are no hate speech laws in America that I'm aware of.

You're completely missing the point.

Not to mention that laws against flag desecration have been ruled unconstitutional, so if that's where you were going, moot point. If you weren't, I think we might be both missing the point.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Two standards for the price of one!

Seriously, though, "hate speech" has been used to describe various forms of speech from mild racial stereotyping to outright threats of lynching. Could you be more specific?

Incitement to violence is where I draw the line. It has to be clear and direct, though. You'd be surprised to find out what sort of mindboggling rhetoric people come up with to justify banning or restricting speech they don't like.

Oh, yeah, total agreement with that. It's the difference between "Faggots are perverted and monstrous", which is rude and untrue, but legal, and "Let's go bash some queers", which is obviously not so legal.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd say "faggots are perverted and monstrous" is unequivocally defamatory and/or malicious.

[Nazi Flower Power]

You're doing it wrong.

I'm not a big fan of the military, but if you're going to do the military thing, I think Dyakovo's, "I said I was going to defend the Constitution, so now I defend the Constitution" attitude is a lot better than your flag fetish. With people that take their oath literally, at least you know what to expect from them, and there are certain rights you can trust them not to trample on.

*bows*
I take oaths seriously, and the oath of enlistment has you swear to defend the constitution, not the flag.

I personally frown on desecrating the flag and would most likely never do it, but I recognize that it is a protected form of expression.

It's not something I would be likely to do either. I'd rather not display a US flag at all, even for the purpose of publicly destroying it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'd say "faggots are perverted and monstrous" is unequivocally defamatory and/or malicious.

Except that both of those are entirely subjective terms.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

it only makes sense, really.

why have standards when you can have DOUBLE standards!

There is no double standard.

The double standard here lies in numerous posters who need not be named who would readily rally behind anti hate speech laws yet come here screaming "freedom of speech". Burning a flag is a classic way of intentionally offending people if you needed reminding.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

I'd say "faggots are perverted and monstrous" is unequivocally defamatory and/or malicious.

If what you are saying was the actual legal standard, the Westboro baptist Church would have been arrested at every event they have staged.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The double standard here lies in numerous posters who need not be named who would readily rally behind anti hate speech laws yet come here screaming "freedom of speech". Burning a flag is a classic way of intentionally offending people if you needed reminding.

I guess I'm not included in that, then, as I also stand against hate speech laws.

I think you're assuming that we do this because it fits your narrative that we're just biased.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

The double standard here lies in numerous posters who need not be named who would readily rally behind anti hate speech laws yet come here screaming "freedom of speech". Burning a flag is a classic way of intentionally offending people if you needed reminding.

I guess I'm not included in that, then, as I also stand against hate speech laws.

I think you're assuming that we do this because it fits your narrative that we're just biased.

No, I just happened to confuse you with someone else.

[Imperializt Russia]

I'd say "faggots are perverted and monstrous" is unequivocally defamatory and/or malicious.

If what you are saying was the actual legal standard, the Westboro baptist Church would have been arrested at every event they have staged.

Don't tease me so.

[The Black Forrest]

There is no double standard.

The double standard here lies in numerous posters who need not be named who would readily rally behind anti hate speech laws yet come here screaming "freedom of speech". Burning a flag is a classic way of intentionally offending people if you needed reminding.

You think hate speech is only about offending people?

[Delkora]

False. Swearing at a cop doesn't constitute a breach of the peace. You have to say something that will likely incite immediate violence (e.g. yelling "attack that cop" during a riot).

Public order then.

Brandenburg v. Ohio