Trump's DOJ wants to criminalize free speech

[ionel]

Just now, headshuck said:

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

Democrats appear to be the party of lawlessness so ...

[Gene Mills Fan]

9 minutes ago, red viking said:

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. 

How many did you burn last night?

[red viking]

15 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

How many did you burn last night?

Didn't do it last night. Most Sundays though, spring to fall. Probably 15 or so per year. 

Generally just paper flags. Don't want to waste money on fabric ones, plus those fumes are more toxic. 

Edited 3 hours ago by red viking

[wrestlingguy]

46 minutes ago, red viking said:

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. 

Where do find time to burn flags between working 55+ hours a week, posting on here non-stop and whatever other made up crap you come up with for the day?

[Tripnsweep]

47 minutes ago, ionel said:

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

It says right there that they did not expand on how this doesn't apply to the first amendment. It also doesn't say anything about how your burning the flag has to cause a riot, just that the act of burning a flag is now going to be prosecuted because it could incite one. 

Your reading comprehension sucks. 

[Caveira]

7 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

It says right there that they did not expand on how this doesn't apply to the first amendment. It also doesn't say anything about how your burning the flag has to cause a riot, just that the act of burning a flag is now going to be prosecuted because it could incite one. 

Your reading comprehension sucks. 

What the Executive Order Says (August 25, 2025)

1. Not a blanket ban—but a targeting strategy.
President Trump did not outlaw flag burning outright. Instead, the order directs the Attorney General to prioritize enforcement of existing, content-neutral laws—such as those against disorderly conduct, property damage, or public safety violations—when an act of desecration occurs alongside other infractions.

2. No claim of absolute unconstitutionality.
The White House emphasizes enforcement only when desecration also causes harms unrelated to protected expression—like incitement of violence—or falls under “imminent lawless action” or “fighting words” exceptions to the First Amendment.

3. Foreign nationals face immigration consequences.
Non-citizens who desecrate the flag may face visa revocation, denial of immigration benefits, or deportation.

[ionel]

14 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

It says right there that they did not expand on how this doesn't apply to the first amendment. It also doesn't say anything about how your burning the flag has to cause a riot, just that the act of burning a flag is now going to be prosecuted because it could incite one. 

Your reading comprehension sucks. 

That who didn't expand?  There are other people.  

[headshuck]

Nobody is going to get arrested for burning a US flag, BLM flag or Pride flag in a peaceful display of freedom of speech.

[red viking]

5 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Nobody is going to get arrested for burning a US flag, BLM flag or Pride flag in a peaceful display of freedom of speech.

As long as I can keep going w my american flag burning parties, I'm good. 

[Tripnsweep]

13 minutes ago, ionel said:

That who didn't expand?  There are other people.  

You should either learn how to read or just stop asking stupid questions. 

[ionel]

8 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

You should either learn how to read or just stop asking stupid questions. 

Trump’s advisers said the executive order “wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment,”

Who wouldd that be?  Can you read? 

[Tripnsweep]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Trump’s advisers said the executive order “wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment,”

Who wouldd that be?  Can you read? 

I don't know who his advisors are. 

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

I don't know who his advisors are. 

Didn't you read the article.  It has to be a perfect article.  So if the author made such a statement then I'm sure he/she/they listed each and every advisor hst is talking about.  Or is it possible the article is flawed?  

[Tripnsweep]

15 minutes ago, ionel said:

Didn't you read the article.  It has to be a perfect article.  So if the author made such a statement then I'm sure he/she/they listed each and every advisor hst is talking about.  Or is it possible the article is flawed?  

Yes I did.

I don't know why you're trying to nitpick about how it was written or quoted when the more important issue is the blatant unconstitutionality of this latest edict by a wannabe dictator. 

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, red viking said:

As long as I can keep going w my american flag burning parties, I'm good. 

Do you actually expect anyone here to believe you have ever had one of these parties, and that you are not just talking BS out your a**?

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

Do you actually expect anyone here to believe you have ever had one of these parties, and that you are not just talking BS out your a**?

If I put it on YouTube, @JimmySpeaks and other wingers definitely will. I don't need data if it meets their narrative. If not, then any data must be fake anyway. 

[ionel]

38 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Yes I did.

I don't know why you're trying to nitpick about how it was written or quoted when the more important issue is the blatant unconstitutionality of this latest edict by a wannabe dictator. 

Where in the article does it say it's unconstitutional? 

[Tripnsweep]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

Where in the article does it say it's unconstitutional? 

You're too stupid to continue with. 

[Caveira]

52 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Yes I did.

I don't know why you're trying to nitpick about how it was written or quoted when the more important issue is the blatant unconstitutionality of this latest edict by a wannabe dictator. 

Literally says not a ban.  What does not a ban mean to you?