Trump's DOJ wants to criminalize free speech

[red viking]

I'm still waiting for an example of what a " certain action" could be that isn't already illegal and not protected by 1st amendment. 

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

That's already illegal though. Putting others in danger. Understand that? Very simple concept.  I'm asking you once again to come up w a "certain action" that is flag specific and not already illegal. Pointless to ban something that is already illegal. 

Illegal yes, investigated and prosecuted....not so much.  Which is precisely the point of the EO, for the AG to review cases for laws that may have been broken in the process.  This is where reading comprehension, or as it appears in this case reading it in the first place, comes into play.

[jross]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

Outlawing any actions that are specific to the flag but not non-u.s. flags is unconstitutional.  

Agreed.  But that isn't what is occurring or even being discussed as occurring in the article.

[red viking]

1 minute ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Illegal yes, investigated and prosecuted....not so much.  Which is precisely the point of the EO, for the AG to review cases for laws that may have been broken in the process.  This is where reading comprehension, or as it appears in this case reading it in the first place, comes into play.

So how about just enforce current laws? Rather than feel the need to pass new laws or e.o.s and selectively enforce only those and ignore other ones that ban the exact same stuff. What you're proposing makes zero sense. AND only when it's a flag but not a different piece of fabric? Absolutely stupid idea. 

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

I think the Trumpanzees here are trying to draw a false equivalent to doing things that are already illegal, like torching a car, to burning a US flag, which in most cases is not illegal. 

 

But most of the times you see this it's on a public street or sidewalk blocking traffic and includes some type of dangerous lighter fluid. 

 

If you want to burn your own US flag then why not do it in your own back yard in your own fire put and use utube or ttoc etc if want to make a free speech statement? 

Edited Friday at 05:30 PM by ionel

[Caveira]

2 hours ago, red viking said:

1st amendment. It's free speech if its my own fabric and i dont put somebody in danger ( smoke, flames, etc). Just like with any other fabric. 

Burning flags have I forgot what they’re bc called.    Flames 

[Caveira]

10 minutes ago, red viking said:

So how about just enforce current laws? Rather than feel the need to pass new laws or e.o.s and selectively enforce only those and ignore other ones that ban the exact same stuff. What you're proposing makes zero sense. AND only when it's a flag but not a different piece of fabric? Absolutely stupid idea. 

Similar to immigration laws ?   Like when Biden couldn’t close the boarder without new laws and Trump just closed the boarder and enforces existing laws?

[red viking]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

Similar to immigration laws ?   Like when Biden couldn’t close the boarder without new laws and Trump just closed the boarder and enforces existing laws?

Another winger defection. They're nonstop. Trying to change the subject when losing. 

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, red viking said:

Another winger defection. They're nonstop. Trying to change the subject when losing. 

You’re only allowed to ignore laws your team doesn’t like ?    Or are all laws supposed to be obeyed ?

[red viking]

51 minutes ago, Caveira said:

You’re only allowed to ignore laws your team doesn’t like ?    Or are all laws supposed to be obeyed ?

Apples and oranges. Most of us agree that laws should be enforced. Has zero to do with creating a new e.o. You don't need that to enforce existing laws. You need to think. 

[Caveira]

Just now, red viking said:

Apples and oranges. Most of us agree that laws should be enforced. Has zero to do with creating a new e.o. You don't need that to enforce existing laws. You need to think. 

Those sanctuary cities.   

[red viking]

6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

Those sanctuary cities.   

So if the smoke is so light ( eg just a nuisance) or they don't throw it in the garbage when done burning and the local cops don't do anything about it, you think the fbi should come in and arrest the flag burner? 

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, red viking said:

Apples and oranges. Most of us agree that laws should be enforced. Has zero to do with creating a new e.o. You don't need that to enforce existing laws. You need to think. 

Then stop burning flags and SUVs in public streets!

[Caveira]

5 minutes ago, red viking said:

So if the smoke is so light ( eg just a nuisance) or they don't throw it in the garbage when done burning and the local cops don't do anything about it, you think the fbi should come in and arrest the flag burner? 

I prefer deporting illegal aliens.  Idk about flag burning.   Just don’t block traffic stand in the street etc 

[Tripnsweep]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

But most of the times you see this it's on a public street or sidewalk blocking traffic and includes some type of dangerous lighter fluid. 

 

If you want to burn your own US flag then why not do it in your own back yard in your own fire put and use utube or ttoc etc if want to make a free speech statement? 

I guess that means fireworks shouldn't be allowed then. Or any public use of other pyrotechnics, smoke effects, etc. 

You're trying to draw parallel a constitutionally protected form of public protest with something that any sane person would recognize as a criminal act. That is a disingenuous argument which to me says you've got nothing to defend this. Just innuendo. 

[jross]

5 hours ago, red viking said:

That's already illegal though. Putting others in danger. Understand that? Very simple concept.  I'm asking you once again to come up w a "certain action" that is flag specific and not already illegal. Pointless to ban something that is already illegal. 

Reports on a proposed EO indicated it raises priority / attention to criminal behavior surrounding flag burning, not the legal act of burning the flag.  An EO is not law...

[ionel]

17 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

I guess that means fireworks shouldn't be allowed then. Or any public use of other pyrotechnics, smoke effects, etc. 

I'm fine with banning fireworks unless stringent controll and training, they do a lot of damage and seem a waste of resources.  Should private citizens be able to shoot them off in public places as a free speech statement?

17 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

 You're trying to draw parallel a constitutionally protected form of public protest with something that any sane person would recognize as a criminal act. That is a disingenuous argument which to me says you've got nothing to defend this. 

My second part was a question not an argument. 

[Tripnsweep]

https://www.12news.com/article/news/nation-world/trump-signs-executive-order-to-prosecute-flag-burning/507-4fd1a614-a217-406e-8f28-e200c91f265b?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_12News&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMZjLlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHpeVMdVe7vnB55VrGEL3Bgtzfolz2qzbrFBtPnnRUMKvrdIx-PKDFaNgctT5_aem_wypJ6onhuLCBE5Dc03bRbw

Well so much for free speech. According to his own words, burning the flag is now an arrestable offense because you will be charged with inciting a riot now.

Hilarious coming from a guy who had his supporters storm the capitol building to prevent the transfer of power who beat police with the flag itself. 

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

https://www.12news.com/article/news/nation-world/trump-signs-executive-order-to-prosecute-flag-burning/507-4fd1a614-a217-406e-8f28-e200c91f265b?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_12News&fbclid=IwQ0xDSwMZjLlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHpeVMdVe7vnB55VrGEL3Bgtzfolz2qzbrFBtPnnRUMKvrdIx-PKDFaNgctT5_aem_wypJ6onhuLCBE5Dc03bRbw

Well so much for free speech. According to his own words, burning the flag is now an arrestable offense because you will be charged with inciting a riot now.

Hilarious coming from a guy who had his supporters storm the capitol building to prevent the transfer of power who beat police with the flag itself. 

They specifically said not to infringe on 1st but to enforce state and local law.  

[red viking]

What an idiot. What it really says is that they'll investigate whether a crime was committed ( in accordance w laws that already exist) whenever somebody burns a flag. Inciting a,riot is already illegal. 

This is pure optics, for the idiot Maga cheerleaders. 

[Tripnsweep]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

They specifically said not to infringe on 1st but to enforce state and local law.  

You didn't read the article. There is nothing that says that. In fact, here is a direct quote.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order charging the Department of Justice with investigating cases of flag desecration and burning, saying that anybody who burns a U.S. flag would be charged with inciting a riot. 

Trump said burning an American flag “incites riots at levels we’ve never seen before.”

Anybody charged for destroying a flag would be charged with inciting a riot and receive one year in jail with no opportunity for early release, Trump claimed. 

Trump’s advisers said the executive order “wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment,” which protects the freedom of speech, but did not expand on what that meant.

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, red viking said:

What an idiot. What it really says is that they'll investigate whether a crime was committed ( in accordance w laws that already exist) whenever somebody burns a flag. Inciting a,riot is already illegal. 

This is pure optics, for the idiot Maga cheerleaders. 

If it’s pure optics.   Why y’all be typing so many words in outrage to it.   Just move on then. 

[red viking]

4 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

You didn't read the article. There is nothing that says that. In fact, here is a direct quote.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order charging the Department of Justice with investigating cases of flag desecration and burning, saying that anybody who burns a U.S. flag would be charged with inciting a riot. 

Trump said burning an American flag “incites riots at levels we’ve never seen before.”

Anybody charged for destroying a flag would be charged with inciting a riot and receive one year in jail with no opportunity for early release, Trump claimed. 

Trump’s advisers said the executive order “wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment,” which protects the freedom of speech, but did not expand on what that meant.

I think that's IF a riot is incited. I'm pretty sure my Sunday flag burning parties are still fine as long as it doesn't turn into a "riot." That never happens though at my parties. Just good people cheering, laughter, listening to good music and a few drinks. 

Edited 4 hours ago by red viking

[ionel]

3 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

 the executive order “wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment,” which protects the freedom of speech, but did not expand on what that meant.

He wasn't the only one in the room.  News articles never give you 100% of the story and everything said.  

[headshuck]

Burning a US flag "in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to “fighting words.”

Democrats will spend the next months fighting to retain the right to incite lawless action by burning a US flag.