Trump's DOJ wants to criminalize free speech

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Trump just getting things done that others before him couldn’t.

This is typical of wingers. Instead of defending or calling our what they're own people do, deflect to something some Democrat proposed to do (but didn't actually do) about 20 years ago. And a Democrat that was never President. 

Edited 4 hours ago by red viking

[Caveira]

30 minutes ago, red viking said:

This is typical of wingers. Instead of defending or calling our what they're own people do, deflect to something some Democrat proposed to do (but didn't actually do) about 20 years ago. And a Democrat that was never President. 

She was close.   Wait.  No she wasn’t.  

[fishbane]

54 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Trump just getting things done that others before him couldn’t.

That proposed constitutional amendment ultimately failed in the Senate by a single vote.  Three republicans voted against it including the wokester Mitch McConnell. 

Trump has not succeeded in pushing through a constitutional amendment.  He signed a do-nothing executive order.  Inciting violence is already illegal and the instances of people burning flags to incite riots are virtually nonexistent.  It will only result in an attempt to prosecute individuals that burn flags in public as a means of expression which is still protected.  A man was arrested yesterday for burning a flag in Lafayette square- no riot followed the act.

Edited 3 hours ago by fishbane

[headshuck]

Dems should exercise their right to burn the US flag as often as possible. Maybe CNN will open their shows with a bonfire.

[ionel]

17 minutes ago, fishbane said:

A man was arrested yesterday for burning a flag in Lafayette square- no riot followed the act.

... he was charged with violating a law against setting fires at federal parks.

[fishbane]

12 minutes ago, ionel said:

... he was charged with violating a law against setting fires at federal parks.

A bogus charge all the same. 

27 minutes ago, headshuck said:

Dems should exercise their right to burn the US flag as often as possible. Maybe CNN will open their shows with a bonfire.

Maybe they could host it from Wyoming or Alaska.  Those were the only states woke enough to not have laws against burning the flag in 1989 when the Supreme court ruled in Texas vs. Johnson.

[ionel]

20 minutes ago, fishbane said:

A bogus charge all the same. 

How could you know that? 

[fishbane]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

How could you know that? 

In 1989 after Johnson vs Texas struck down the Texas State law against flag burning Congress passed a federal law against it.  When that law went into effect in 1990 protestors burned flags on the steps of the US Capitol.  This same law you reference was on the books at the time and would have been applicable at that location.  Those defendants were charged with violating the Flag Protection Act of 1989, disorderly conduct and demonstrating without a permit, but not with violating a law setting fires in federal parks probably for good reason.  None of what they were charged with ultimately stuck as the rogue woke judge Antonin Scalia sided with the majority in US vs. Eichman.

It would be a long shot that to get any farther with this.  From the US District court opinion from 1990 "government cannot regulate the non-speech elements of expressive conduct where its true aim is to suppress the speech elements of the actor's conduct."  "Fires" are lit all the time in Lafayette square whether it's someone lighting a cigarette, holding up a lighter at a protest, a candle for a vigil, or a president lighting a menorah for a holiday.  How many have ever been arrested or sentenced to a year in prison?  The only thing different here is the message.

[fishbane]

27 minutes ago, ionel said:

How could you know that? 

How many people here were arrested?  This was in May of 2025.

[Gene Mills Fan]

5 minutes ago, fishbane said:

How many people here were arrested?  This was in May of 2025.

DUMB

[fishbane]

1 minute ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

DUMB

Perhaps, but they are within their rights to do it the same as the flag burners.

[Gene Mills Fan]

5 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Perhaps, but they are within their rights to do it the same as the flag burners.

perhaps, their fires are all contained. 

[fishbane]

12 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

perhaps, their fires are all contained. 

They are breaking the same law nonetheless. 

Quote

§ 2.13 Fires.

(a) The following are prohibited:

(1) Lighting or maintaining a fire, except in designated areas or receptacles and under conditions that may be established by the superintendent.

Here are the fire/candle rules established by the superintendent of Lafayette Square 

Quote

B. Fires

While 36 CFR 2.13 generally prohibits lighting or maintaining a fire, a permit may authorize open flame candles relating to a demonstration, but such candles must always be hand-held and equipped with drip protectors to protect park resources

Even if they have a permit I see a lot of candles that aren't hand-held in that photo and where are the drip protectors?

Finally, the max penalty for lighting a fire in Lafayette Square is only 6 months, which is 6 months less than Trump promised in his executive order.

Quote

(a)Violation of Regulations Relating to Use and Management of National Park System Units.—

A person that violates any regulation authorized by section 100751(a) of title 54 shall be imprisoned not more than 6 months, fined under this title, or both, and be adjudged to pay all cost of the proceedings.

Edited 1 hour ago by fishbane

[Offthemat]

24 minutes ago, fishbane said:

How many people here were arrested?  This was in May of 2025.

Okay, if you hold the flag in your mouth, like it’s a cigarette, you can burn it. 

[mspart]

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/08/26/running-it-up-the-flagpole-why-the-trump-order-on-flag-burning-is-unconstitutional/#more-235125

Turley disagrees with Trump on this one.   Essentially burning flags is protected.   It cannot be used as a sentencing enhancement where it created an injurious situation or otherwise public harm.   

mspart

[Offthemat]

 

[mspart]

Hmmm   that's really interesting.   

mspart

[ionel]

41 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/08/26/running-it-up-the-flagpole-why-the-trump-order-on-flag-burning-is-unconstitutional/#more-235125

Turley disagrees with Trump on this one.   Essentially burning flags is protected. 

... any flag?

[mspart]

Apparently not the pride or lgbtxyz flags.  

mspart

[ionel]

17 minutes ago, mspart said:

Apparently not the pride or lgbtxyz flags.  

mspart

But we could burn the California flag if we wanted?  Ive asked this before but never got an answer.

Can I burn the Mexico flag if I'm in the US Embassy in Mexico ... kindve like being on US soil?  

 

[ionel]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

... he was charged with violating a law against setting fires at federal parks.

 

2 hours ago, fishbane said:

A bogus charge all the same. 

Did he have a permit?

[Offthemat]

it could be worse.