Within minutes it seems we already have comments claiming that this is pointless because it's already what the law says, and also implying that this is pointless because it disagrees with the law and will therefore be reverted by the judicial branch.
These clearly can't both be true... ?
At any rate, for those who wish for this action to be legal, do you feel the same way about the flags of other countries? Why or why not?
dragonwriter · 21m ago
> Within minutes it seems we already have comments claiming that this is pointless because it's already what the law says, and also implying that this is pointless because it disagrees with the law and will therefore be reverted by the judicial branch.
I don't see anyone claiming that the law already provides for this punishment, every post on the existing law says this conflicts with it, explicitly or, in one case, implicitly. Are you perhaps misreading the “settled case law” post which does rely on the reader knowing the existing case law?
> These clearly can't both be true... ?
It is in conflict with existing Constitutional case law, but those claiming it is a nullity with no significance for that reason are nonetheless incorrect both because quite a lot of damage can be done before courts act and because there is no guarantee of how the current Supreme Court will act just because the existing case law is clear.
And, frankly, because the present administration, when it wants to punish without legal basis, doesn't just fold when the courts strike down what it is doing, but shifts theoretical basis and continues applying punishment.
zahlman · 12m ago
> Are you perhaps misreading the “settled case law” post which does rely on the reader knowing the existing case law?
Apparently.
thejazzman · 1h ago
it's a pretty blatant violation of free speech, but murica doesn't care bout that now that their speech is dominant
zahlman · 1h ago
Aside from sneering, this does not answer the question.
stop50 · 17m ago
Just do the same as the great britain BSI: forbid the sale of burnable flags.
When the brexit happened quite a few tried to burn them.
taylodl · 1h ago
Sign away. This is already settled case law. It's just further proof that this administration is all theater and offers nothing of substance.
os2warpman · 1h ago
There is no such thing as settled case law anymore.
There is only what the John Birch Society and Heritage Foundation tell the Supreme Court to do.
taylodl · 1h ago
The reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was controversial from day one. Texas v. Johnson is much more straightforward and doesn't suffer from controversy. United States V. Eichman re-affirmed the ruling. This is going to be extremely tough to weasel out of without giving the game away that the United States is now fully embracing authoritarianism.
hypeatei · 38m ago
> without giving the game away that the United States is now fully embracing authoritarianism.
The multiple civil suits that Trump is engaging in as president against pollsters and news organizations for saying things he doesn't like, the arrests + deportation of foreigners for protesting Israel, and the targeting of law firms who represent people opposing the administration don't already indicate this? Going after flag burning just further confirms that we're slowly but surely embracing authoritarianism.
AnimalMuppet · 12m ago
Well, those indicate that Trump is fully embracing authoritarianism. Whether the court system lets him go... they're going further than I like, but I hold out hope that they may stop him short, no matter how much he wants to go there.
hypeatei · 9m ago
I hope for the same thing, but it's still sad to see the point we've reached where some people actively cheer these actions on or don't treat them with the seriousness they deserve.
dragonwriter · 20m ago
Really, the Federalist Society is more relevant than either of the groups you name, but...
Bender · 1h ago
Banning flag burning will be thrown out again. [1] Whats more this is in conflict with the proper means of destroying a damaged flag. [2][k]
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
Also as an American and a US Veteran of the armed forces I support the right to burn a flag and not be shot for it. If anything it shows the strength and resilience of a country to support dissent rather than fearing it. Governments built on a house of cards fear dissent. For those opposing flag burning, be happy your dissenters are self identifying. The bigger threats are often silent. If a person really hates a country they reside in then they should leave it as soon as possible and never return otherwise they are just throwing a tantrum or seeking attention. Have some comfort in knowing these people are likely just sheep that have been manipulated by online agent provocateurs to sow division as part of Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) [3].
If people are lighting fires without a burn permit one can and should use a fire extinguisher to put out the fire. Fire safety starts with you.
These clearly can't both be true... ?
At any rate, for those who wish for this action to be legal, do you feel the same way about the flags of other countries? Why or why not?
I don't see anyone claiming that the law already provides for this punishment, every post on the existing law says this conflicts with it, explicitly or, in one case, implicitly. Are you perhaps misreading the “settled case law” post which does rely on the reader knowing the existing case law?
> These clearly can't both be true... ?
It is in conflict with existing Constitutional case law, but those claiming it is a nullity with no significance for that reason are nonetheless incorrect both because quite a lot of damage can be done before courts act and because there is no guarantee of how the current Supreme Court will act just because the existing case law is clear.
And, frankly, because the present administration, when it wants to punish without legal basis, doesn't just fold when the courts strike down what it is doing, but shifts theoretical basis and continues applying punishment.
Apparently.
There is only what the John Birch Society and Heritage Foundation tell the Supreme Court to do.
The multiple civil suits that Trump is engaging in as president against pollsters and news organizations for saying things he doesn't like, the arrests + deportation of foreigners for protesting Israel, and the targeting of law firms who represent people opposing the administration don't already indicate this? Going after flag burning just further confirms that we're slowly but surely embracing authoritarianism.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
Also as an American and a US Veteran of the armed forces I support the right to burn a flag and not be shot for it. If anything it shows the strength and resilience of a country to support dissent rather than fearing it. Governments built on a house of cards fear dissent. For those opposing flag burning, be happy your dissenters are self identifying. The bigger threats are often silent. If a person really hates a country they reside in then they should leave it as soon as possible and never return otherwise they are just throwing a tantrum or seeking attention. Have some comfort in knowing these people are likely just sheep that have been manipulated by online agent provocateurs to sow division as part of Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW) [3].
If people are lighting fires without a burn permit one can and should use a fire extinguisher to put out the fire. Fire safety starts with you.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States
[2] - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/8
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_warfare