Should an act of expression be a crime?

[The Only Sarge]

citation?

2 Internet Points.

[USFREEDOM911]

you would probably have better luck convincing them you have the right to throw gasoline on the flag as he's holding out the match.......

But what if I miss the flag and accidently throw the gas on the person holding the match??

[NOVA]

Fact check that, she sponsored a bill banning flag burning when the sole intent was to start a riot or insite violence. I still disagree, but that is signifigantly different.

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as original co-sponsor. The other co-sponsors included Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.).[1]

The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.[1][2][3]

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:

Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_P...on_Act_of_2005

I'm just curious....when would desecration of the flag not do any of the above....maybe in your back yard when no one is looking ?
When did you ever see desecration of the flag not be a breach of the peace ?....
When flags put up at Brown U. to honor the vets on Veterns Day
were destroyed by the students was that not a breach of peace and an act of intimidation and to incite violence...?

[USFREEDOM911]

is laughing while he burns an expression of free speech?.....

YES, along with pointing and inviting your friends to join in.

[USFREEDOM911]

Oh, pipe down. I don't care about convincing people of anything. Do I hate that Trump is about to be President? Hells yes.

Good luck w/ tweety. I know how this is going to go. Seen this movie too many times.

[sear]

The point I'm making is that if you believe Bush lied then you MUST admit the rest of the people that said essentially the same things lied....

I'll side-step your "MUST", and simply inform you that I certainly do.

Knowingly stating a falsehood as a certitude is a lie as far as I'm concerned.

BUT !!

Bush's wording does not match Pelosi's wording.

Bush's wording was "leaves no doubt". That addresses state of mind.
Pelosi's wording is listed as "no question". I have a question. WHERE THE %$#@ ARE THEY ?!?!

So Pelosi addressed a slightly different issue, by dint of vague legislative rhetoric.

But on your weakly made point, a lie is a lie, no matter who says it; I basically agree. "Me Jane, you Tarzan."

[NOVA]

But what if I miss the flag and accidently throw the gas on the person holding the match??

That would be an unfortunate accident if the person voted for Trump....
A hate crime if the person was Black or Hispanic....
or willful murder if the person was a liberal....

[Cancel 2018.2]

Fact check that, she sponsored a bill banning flag burning when the sole intent was to start a riot or insite violence. I still disagree, but that is signifigantly different.

Are you sure about? Cite.

[tsuke]

And that is even worse, using an American ideal to manipulate politics.

if its an american ideal then you have no problem. The populace will love you defending the right to burn a flag one day after the shooting by the refugee. I hope the media gives it wall to wall coverage.

[USFREEDOM911]

Yawn @ hypocrite...............
Donald Trump came under heavy criticism Tuesday after calling for the criminalization of burning the American flag, with critics gasping that the president-elect’s words represent a threat to the First Amendment. However, Trump’s suggestions are similar to a bill pushed in the Senate in 2005 that would criminalize flag burning – a bill that was co-sponsored by then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.

OMG, what are the liberals going to say now??

[NOVA]

I'll side-step your "MUST", and simply inform you that I certainly do.

Knowingly stating a falsehood as a certitude is a lie as far as I'm concerned.

BUT !!

Bush's wording does not match Pelosi's wording.

Bush's wording was "leaves no doubt". That addresses state of mind.
Pelosi's wording is listed as "no question". I have a question. WHERE THE %$#@ ARE THEY ?!?!

So Pelosi addressed a slightly different issue, by dint of vague legislative rhetoric.

But on your weakly made point, a lie is a lie, no matter who says it; I basically agree. "Me Jane, you Tarzan."

Its the essence of the quotes idiot....do you really expect every person to use exactly the same words while making the same exact point ?....
Your lame excuse are pathetic, as bad as Thingys....

How about these.....

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003

Incontestable (undeniable)

and Gephardt asked the CIA dirctly, not Bush people, not the NEA writers

[Jarod]

The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah), with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as original co-sponsor. The other co-sponsors included Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.).[1]

The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.[1][2][3]

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:

Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; or (2) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag either belonging to the United States or on lands reserved for the United States and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_P...on_Act_of_2005

I'm just curious....when would desecration of the flag not do any of the above....maybe in your back yard when no one is looking ?
When did you ever see desecration of the flag not be a breach of the peace ?....
When flags put up at Brown U. to honor the vets on Veterns Day
were destroyed by the students was that not a breach of peace and an act of intimidation and to incite violence...?

"Primary purpose"

[PostmodernProphet]

I did not say that, dimwit!

but....

I am saying he is unfit to be an American president.

[PostmodernProphet]

Blocking traffic? No. You see the act of blocking traffic, materially affects people in a negative way, not just some emotional way. The rights of travelers would outweigh the right to free speech.

so, did Trump saying they should spend a year in jail affect you materially?......

[Jarod]

but....

In my opinion he is unfit to be an American president, but not legally prohibited.