Free Speech - Only if we agree with it

[GURPS]

Boycott Frosted Flakes!


Liberal bullies are trying to pressure advertisers into boycotting Breitbart.com, one of the most popular conservative sites on the internet. Unfortunately, they are having considerable success.

As you probably know, Breitbart.com was founded by Andrew Breitbart and has been run by Steve Bannon following Andrew’s tragically premature death. Breitbart.com was an early and enthusiastic backer of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and Bannon became a close adviser to Trump. He is now headed for the White House.

I criticized the site for becoming a Trump mouthpiece, and other critiques could be leveled. But Breitbart.com is more reputable than, say, the New York Times, a Hillary Clinton mouthpiece. The site’s success has put it in the crosshairs of the left. The Associated Press reports:

Kellogg has announced that it will no longer advertise on Breitbart.com, the website formerly run by one of President-elect Donald Trump’s top aides, Steve Bannon.

The food manufacturer decided to discontinue advertising on the site as soon as it was alerted by consumers to the presence of its ads, Kellogg Co. spokeswoman Kris Charles said Tuesday.​

 

[PsyOps]

I don't view businesses, making business decisions, as a free speech matter. They can do whatever they want, and let the consumers decide whether it's a good idea or not. Free speech - like all other rights - is only truly impacted when government steps in and limits it.

As president, Trump is suggesting a ban on burning the American flag. He will not, and should not, get support in congress for such a law. I find what Trump is proposing far more dangerous and disturbing than what Kellogg is doing.

 

[glhs837]

Yep, boycott away. They can do with their money, you can do with what you want with yours. I don't hold Brietbart in any higher esteem than any other media. And lower than some.

 

[vraiblonde]

As president, Trump is suggesting a ban on burning the American flag. He will not, and should not, get support in congress for such a law. I find what Trump is proposing far more dangerous and disturbing than what Kellogg is doing.

Why is it "dangerous and disturbing" to not allow immature morons to burn our flag in some illiterate and misguided attempt to voice their displeasure? Is it also dangerous and disturbing to send a tantruming toddler to their room until they can calm down?

What else is dangerous and disturbing to you? How about dispersing crowds of rioting malcontents? Are you in the Stephanie Blake camp that says give them room to "express themselves"? Do you agree with protesters shutting down cities and blocking traffic while exercising their right to free speech?

Because here's my take on it:

Your rights end where my nose begins. By setting fires and blocking traffic, you are forcing me to listen to your childish gripes, and that infringes on MY rights. You can bitch and whine all you want, but you cannot force me to listen. If you want to burn a flag in your backyard, be my guest. But when you do it in the middle of a street or any other public place, you are creating a hazard and violating my safety and freedoms.

So please, Psy, explain to me why you think rioting fascists should have more rights in this country than the rest of us? Why is their "free speech" more important than my safety and ability to get to work on time or pick up my kid from daycare?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Why is it "dangerous and disturbing" to not allow immature morons to burn our flag in some illiterate and misguided attempt to voice their displeasure? Is it also dangerous and disturbing to send a tantruming toddler to their room until they can calm down?

What else is dangerous and disturbing to you? How about dispersing crowds of rioting malcontents? Are you in the Stephanie Blake camp that says give them room to "express themselves"? Do you agree with protesters shutting down cities and blocking traffic while exercising their right to free speech?

Because here's my take on it:

Your rights end where my nose begins. By setting fires and blocking traffic, you are forcing me to listen to your childish gripes, and that infringes on MY rights. You can bitch and whine all you want, but you cannot force me to listen. If you want to burn a flag in your backyard, be my guest. But when you do it in the middle of a street or any other public place, you are creating a hazard and violating my safety and freedoms.

So please, Psy, explain to me why you think rioting fascists should have more rights in this country than the rest of us? Why is their "free speech" more important than my safety and ability to get to work on time or pick up my kid from daycare?

I think you're equating a few different things here.

It's dangerous because it's well known to be a constitutionally-protected right to free speech to burn the flag and to threaten loss of citizenship and a year in jail for it is utterly ridiculous.

We don't have to like it and someone doing something you don't like isn't equal to them "violating your safety and freedoms", no matter the inconvenience of it. It's also not akin to blocking traffic and rioting.

 

[mAlice]

I think that every time someone is caught burning a flag, they should be fined $1000. That money in turn should be sent to the USO in support of the troops who maintain your right to free speech.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think you're equating a few different things here.

It's dangerous because it's well known to be a constitutionally-protected right to free speech to burn the flag and to threaten loss of citizenship and a year in jail for it is utterly ridiculous.

We don't have to like it and someone doing something you don't like isn't equal to them "violating your safety and freedoms", no matter the inconvenience of it. It's also not akin to blocking traffic and rioting.

Where does it say in the Constitution that you are allowed to burn things because you're angry and want to throw a tantrum? Some leftist America hater decided back in the crazy hippie 60s that it was okay to burn our flag, and it became conventional wisdom, but that was an independent decision, NOT a constitutional one.

But I have 5 minutes before I have to leave for my hair appt, so I can entertain myself at your expense:

You say that burning the flag doesn't violate safety and freedoms, nor is it akin to blocking traffic and rioting. SO! Think for a second and tell me where most flag burnings occur, and under what circumstances? Give me a typical flag burning protest scenario - who, what, where, when, how.

 

[glhs837]

Yep, vrai, bringing in things that are impinging on your rights, like blocking a road, that muddies the waters a bit. You want to stand in a public park and burn one (as long as you comply with whatever local ordinance covers open burning in the park), go right ahead. You want to burn it in the middle of the road and block people from using their freedom, you get arrested for that, not for burning the flag.

 

[Midnightrider]

Yep, vrai, bringing in things that are impinging on your rights, like blocking a road, that muddies the waters a bit. You want to stand in a public park and burn one (as long as you comply with whatever local ordinance covers open burning in the park), go right ahead. You want to burn it in the middle of the road and block people from using their freedom, you get arrested for that, not for burning the flag.

Exactly. The whole idea of freedom of speech is to protect unpopular speech. Burning the flag has repeatedly been found to be a matter of free speech, that's all there really is to it. What's next, you get thrown in jail if you fly your flag upside down?


As for inconveniencing people and getting arrested, those have both been standard tactics of protest for as long as we have had government. You protest in a way that intentionally breaks the law so as to bring visabiliy to the subject and to force the government to do something about it. It's part of a free society

 

[black dog]

Boycott Frosted Flakes!


Liberal bullies are trying to pressure advertisers into boycotting Breitbart.com, one of the most popular conservative sites on the internet. Unfortunately, they are having considerable success.

As you probably know, Breitbart.com was founded by Andrew Breitbart and has been run by Steve Bannon following Andrew’s tragically premature death. Breitbart.com was an early and enthusiastic backer of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, and Bannon became a close adviser to Trump. He is now headed for the White House.

I criticized the site for becoming a Trump mouthpiece, and other critiques could be leveled. But Breitbart.com is more reputable than, say, the New York Times, a Hillary Clinton mouthpiece. The site’s success has put it in the crosshairs of the left. The Associated Press reports:

Kellogg has announced that it will no longer advertise on Breitbart.com, the website formerly run by one of President-elect Donald Trump’s top aides, Steve Bannon.

The food manufacturer decided to discontinue advertising on the site as soon as it was alerted by consumers to the presence of its ads, Kellogg Co. spokeswoman Kris Charles said Tuesday.​

I did a book report on John H Kellogg in High School, his views on a few topics were very interesting to say the least.

 

[PsyOps]

Why is it "dangerous and disturbing" to not allow immature morons to burn our flag in some illiterate and misguided attempt to voice their displeasure? Is it also dangerous and disturbing to send a tantruming toddler to their room until they can calm down?

What else is dangerous and disturbing to you? How about dispersing crowds of rioting malcontents? Are you in the Stephanie Blake camp that says give them room to "express themselves"? Do you agree with protesters shutting down cities and blocking traffic while exercising their right to free speech?

Because here's my take on it:

Your rights end where my nose begins. By setting fires and blocking traffic, you are forcing me to listen to your childish gripes, and that infringes on MY rights. You can bitch and whine all you want, but you cannot force me to listen. If you want to burn a flag in your backyard, be my guest. But when you do it in the middle of a street or any other public place, you are creating a hazard and violating my safety and freedoms.

So please, Psy, explain to me why you think rioting fascists should have more rights in this country than the rest of us? Why is their "free speech" more important than my safety and ability to get to work on time or pick up my kid from daycare?

You’re really going way out on that limb with your comparisons. You want to cite them for creating a fire hazard, or illegally burning something… I’m all for that. We’ve had conversations in the past about “your rights end where my nose begins” when it comes to smoking. Your answer to that was “go somewhere else”.

They will be fined and sent on their way. Trump is proposing criminalizing the burning of the flag; a form of free speech upheld by the Supreme Court. Burning the flag annoys the living hell out of me, because it’s self-defeating. I’m not at all offended by it, but what these flag burners seem to be demanding is contrary to the liberties the flag represents. So, I don’t get it.

And as far as being inconvenienced in road blocks and such - you should recall back to our discussion about bikers taking it upon themselves to block traffic so their posse can pass through intersections unabated, and you railed about me being impatient and my time being more important than anyone else. I would suggest blocking roads without authorization is illegal and should be dealt with by police. Given your stance on this, I would assume you agree?

I thought this thread was about free speech and flag burning and Trump suggesting THAT should be banned; not rioting, blocking streets, and destruction of property; which are already illegal. My concern is – if flag burning is so reprehensible that it demands to be criminalized, what else?

 

[PsyOps]

I think that every time someone is caught burning a flag, they should be fined $1000.

But not under the premise of burning the flag; but the fact that they didn't get a burn permit and it's a fire/safety hazard; which is already illegal. So we don't need a law regarding flag burning, we already have laws regarding unapproved fires in public places.

 

[glhs837]

But not under the premise of burning the flag; but the fact that they didn't get a burn permit and it's a fire/safety hazard; which is already illegal. So we don't need a law regarding flag burning, we already have laws regarding unapproved fires in public places.

What we need, just like with firearms, is the public will to allow officers to enforce those laws. And get DAs to charge people. And judges to punish IAW those laws.

 

[Restitution]

We don't have to like it and someone doing something you don't like isn't equal to them "violating your safety and freedoms", no matter the inconvenience of it. It's also not akin to blocking traffic and rioting.

So you would have no problems if several Trump supporters decided to sit at the end of your driveway and protest the fact that Hillary wasn't imprisoned for the email stuff? Day and night... every day and night?

Because, after all..... "no matter the inconvenience of it....." Right?

 

[PsyOps]

What we need, just like with firearms, is the public will to allow officers to enforce those laws. And get DAs to charge people. And judges to punish IAW those laws.

I guess it's a judgment call by police. Is it really worth their efforts to arrest every flag burner, cite them with creating a fire hazard or not having a burn permit, make them pay the fine, only to have them back out there burning another flag? As long as the Soros money is flowing to these people, they will keep doing what they're doing.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Where does it say in the Constitution that you are allowed to burn things because you're angry and want to throw a tantrum? Some leftist America hater decided back in the crazy hippie 60s that it was okay to burn our flag, and it became conventional wisdom, but that was an independent decision, NOT a constitutional one.

But I have 5 minutes before I have to leave for my hair appt, so I can entertain myself at your expense:

You say that burning the flag doesn't violate safety and freedoms, nor is it akin to blocking traffic and rioting. SO! Think for a second and tell me where most flag burnings occur, and under what circumstances? Give me a typical flag burning protest scenario - who, what, where, when, how.

It doesn't say it in the Constitution. Then again, the Constitution doesn't say everything. It's ground work and SCOTUS has ruled on it already. (Texas v. Johnson) Even Scalia was on the majority.

Texas, much like yourself, argued that flag burning was a breach of peace. The court ruled,

...no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's burning of the flag...

. Again, much like yourself, Texas argued that flag burning would incite "lawless action". The court ruled that flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/case.html

Burning the flag does NOT equal blocking traffic. It does NOT equal rioting. If those things happen at the same time, or in the same instances, then the rioting and blocking traffic can be illegal, but the flag burning itself is not.

I don't need to give you a scenario of when they occur because it doesn't matter. Flag burning in itself is legal and protected as free speech under the constitution.

Again, I understand you and I don't like it. I think the people that do it are stupid, but like Justice Kennedy said,

Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So you would have no problems if several Trump supporters decided to sit at the end of your driveway and protest the fact that Hillary wasn't imprisoned for the email stuff? Day and night... every day and night?

Because, after all..... "no matter the inconvenience of it....." Right?

I wouldn't give a ####. They are on public property and my driveway is long enough to where it doesn't matter to me.

I'd imagine most Trump supporters have jobs they have to go to instead of spending day and night in my tiny neighborhood in BFE.

Your scenario and the flag burning scenario are one in the same. Constitutionally protected rights to free speech. Maybe you don't like the protections the constitution gives, or simply misunderstand its intent, but I do. Anyone who does should have a problem with Trump wanting to criminalize constitutional rights.

 

[PsyOps]

Texas, much like yourself, argued that flag burning was a breach of peace. The court ruled, . Again, much like yourself, Texas argued that flag burning would incite "lawless action". The court ruled that flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action.

Literally any form of speech could incite "law actions". Protests (which we all agree are protected under the constitution) have often resulted in riots. I would argue that protests that started off peaceful then turned violent occur more often than burning the flag. Should we criminalize protesting because it COULD incite violence?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Literally any form of speech could incite "law actions". Protests (which we all agree are protected under the constitution) have often resulted in riots. I would argue that protests that started off peaceful then turned violent occur more often than burning the flag. Should we criminalize protesting because it COULD incite violence?

That's the point. How many other actions would become criminal based on the idea something illegal could happen?

 

[PsyOps]

I wouldn't give a ####. They are on public property and my driveway is long enough to where it doesn't matter to me.

I'd imagine most Trump supporters have jobs they have to go to instead of spending day and night in my tiny neighborhood in BFE.

Your scenario and the flag burning scenario are one in the same. Constitutionally protected rights to free speech. Maybe you don't like the protections the constitution gives, or simply misunderstand its intent, but I do. Anyone who does should have a problem with Trump wanting to criminalize constitutional rights.

I disagree in part. People standing at the end of my driveway, yet still on public property, blocking me from leaving my driveway is impeding my freedom of movement. This isn't a matter of convenience, it's a matter of one exercising their rights that result in infringing on someone else's rights. We do agree that our government should not pass laws that criminalize forms of free speech. Folks on here should be smart enough to know that once you go down this road, just about anything deemed offensive can be banned. And don't think our government won't do it.