Mexican Flag flies over US Flag

[Dan Beaird]

I am not aware of any case where free speech trumped property rights. In short is OK to burn your flag, but if you burn your neighbours you cannot claim free speech.
Illegal Graffiti "artists" and other assorted vandals cannot claim "free speech" as a defence, etc etc.
[Flying[/i] the flag was an act of protected speech.

Evidently nobody was killed or injured trying to protect it. I see this as similar to two different sides in a protest shouting at each other across the street. Nobody got hurt, both sides made their point. It could have been worse.

They do, they can protest without infringing on t he property rights of others.

But it is a valued American tradition to break the law in acts of civil disobedience...or should we let those people sit in the back of the bus again?

If I were the police chief there I'd put my hands in my pockets, turn around and walk away slowly. Even that would probably get me sued.

Why should flag flyer's have right to neither speech or property protected?

Did a law officer witness the act? Has the owner filed a complaint? Is the crime serious enough (in real damage terms) to warrant any official action? As you said above...they have the right to protest, they have the right to seek damage through suit. I'm limiting my part of the discussion to if it qualifies as politically protected speech, not if it's legal.

I said I'd walk away from it if I were Chief of Police...I don't know if I would get away with it...but, from where I sit, doing anything else would just make it worse.

 

[tsg]

Both activities involve a certain amount of civil disobedience, (or crime if you want to call it that) and the question is posed for those who see a difference between them. Personally I don't.

The main difference is that theft of property directly harms another person while flag burning generally does not, and if it did the flag burner would not be absolved from this by "free speech". It's not really a valid comparison.

To make the comparison more apt, if the person in the OP stole the flag to burn it in protest he would just as likely be prosecuted for property theft.

ETA: I would also add that property theft is not likely to qualify as civil disobedience.

 

[Phrost]

Legal, ethical, or otherwise, the guy who flew the Mexican flag above the American one is a douchebag, making a statement of contempt for the country in which he resides.

 

[Dan Beaird]

The main difference is that theft of property directly harms another person while flag burning generally does not, and if it did the flag burner would not be absolved from this by "free speech". It's not really a valid comparison.

To make the comparison more apt, if the person in the OP stole the flag to burn it in protest he would just as likely be prosecuted for property theft.

ETA: I would also add that property theft is not likely to qualify as civil disobedience.

That's a fair response, but doesn't civil disobedience tend to be expressed in a form that affects property in some way? When 50,000 people stage a die-in and deny access even to emergency vehicles are they not stealing the property in a way?

What I'm getting at is it shouldn't matter what side a person is on when determining if their act was legitimate free speech or not. We've had a lot of ruckus in my neck of the woods around the immigration issue and I'd heard of American flags being torn down and replaced with Mexican flags, and I considered that a form of free speech. I have to really stretch to make myself see this as anything else. In both cases property rights have been violated...where is the line drawn?

 

[tsg]

But it is a valued American tradition to break the law in acts of civil disobedience...or should we let those people sit in the back of the bus again?

Civil disobedience is generally a form of protest with the expectation of being arrested for breaking the law. It doesn't make the protesters innocent of the charges.

 

[brodski]

Evidently nobody was killed or injured trying to protect it. I see this as similar to two different sides in a protest shouting at each other across the street. Nobody got hurt, both sides made their point. It could have been worse.

no, one stole and vandalized the property of another.

But it is a valued American tradition to break the law in acts of civil disobedience...or should we let those people sit in the back of the bus again?

Do i need to dignify this with a response? A man didn't like the political speech of someone else, so he stole and vandalized his property to prevent him from exercising his right to speech, and you want to compare this to Selma and Montgomery?
What right was the vandal protecting? What noble freedom was he striving for? the right to force everyone to fly the US flag in the right way?

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Legal, ethical, or otherwise, the guy who flew the Mexican flag above the American one is a douchebag, making a statement of contempt for the country in which he resides.

I still do not get this at all.. I mean... at all. You're presuming to know exactly what the motives, the background and the intended message of the store owner are. And for that matter, how much thought he even put into this.

I can see being upset by this in the context of thinking that Americans should appreciate the flag enough and take it seriously enough to not be ignorant of the basic standards by which it should be displayed.

You're reading this in the context of what it means as a symbol in the traditions of international common law. That's a very narrow presumption. It reminds me of the imperial ignorance by which cultures are often judged by assuming that the de facto standards of one culture mean the same as in another.


If a family of buddists moves to the US from and puts a big golden swastica over their door as soon as they arrive, and this angers and offends a bunch of Jewish families in the neighborhood, it does not actually make them douchebags or pro-nazi. Even though as soon as most westerns see one the first thing that comes to mind is Nazism, that does not mean that someone has ill intentions if they display it without realizing what it will be seen as.

 

[brodski]

What I'm getting at is it shouldn't matter what side a person is on when determining if their act was legitimate free speech or not. We've had a lot of ruckus in my neck of the woods around the immigration issue and I'd heard of American flags being torn down and replaced with Mexican flags, and I considered that a form of free speech. I have to really stretch to make myself see this as anything else.

i think you are wrong. Do graffiti artists have protection under the 1st amendment?
Should political campaigners be able to tear down the posters of their opponents?
Preventing someone from exercising their right to free speech is not an act of free speech.
Vandalism is not an act of protecetd speech.

 

[drkitten]

What I'm getting at is it shouldn't matter what side a person is on when determining if their act was legitimate free speech or not. We've had a lot of ruckus in my neck of the woods around the immigration issue and I'd heard of American flags being torn down and replaced with Mexican flags, and I considered that a form of free speech.

I don't think you understand what "free speech" entails. Nothing about "free speech" offers you an out for other crimes committed in the process -- similarly, nothing about "free speech" prevented Rosa Parks from being arrested (and, I believe, convicted) for having refused to sit at the back of the bus.

Civil disobedience is a form of conscoiusness-raising, but all the participants who aren't absolute idiots recognize that arrest, trial, and conviction is a risk of participating.

The question, then, is not whether stealing a US flag and replacing it with a Mexican flag is a political act. It is. As such, you couldn't make it a special crime, to be punished more severely than replacing a Mexican flag with a US flag. But as long as the laws against it are content-neutral (e.g., it's treated as any other petty theft), then the question THEN becomes whether or not it's worth prosecuting someone for this particular crime. An immigrant's rights activist would probably love a chance to get prosecuted (and get the attendant publicity) in exchange for the $50 fine.

 

[Tokenconservative]

I've heard this sort of question before. But rather than just ask the question and move on, as if you have made some kind of point, I would like you to develop the point, please. Why is this question, or its answer, relevant? What point are you trying to make, exactly?

I've heard this sort of question before. What exactly is it about my question that puzzles you? Do you know that answering a question WITH a question is one of the big no-nos in logical discourse?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

RE: JEROME

I'm sorry, they are not a hostile army. yet...

In anycase, I'm pointing out that try diplomacy first. It even works sometimes.

I'm not sure what country you are from, or if you are in America where you live in America, but this invasion force has taken over large areas of the US Southwest, South, West and is no making inroads in the Midwest, Eastern Seaboard and even...Alaska!

Unlike past waves of immigrants to this country, these invaders have no intention of assimilating, adopting American values and lifestyles. They intend, with the help of willing accomplices on the inside, to radically alter America to make it look more like Mexico and Latin America...so it's "better."

They break our laws just by being here, pay into our social system, on avg. about $10k for every $30 they take out (that's a net loss in case the math evades you...a substantial one that is non-sustainable over the long-run even in our robust economy) creat havoc on our roads (do you know that 6 of the cars involved in that I-5 pileup a few weeks ago were abandoned at the site and that two of the trucks were driven by Mexican truck drivers? Of course you don't), engage in drug running and violent crime to the point that some 20% of those in fed lockups are illegals and as many as 40% in some state systems, disrupt our schools and in general do not add to the betterment of American life, but rather work hard to destroy this country.

If that's not a hostile army, I don't know what is.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Hmmmmm, this is the OP and I don't think it addresses non-tax payers using the tax-payer funded system.

I was commenting previously on Token's ridiculous assertion that he can tell the status of someone's citizenship by their headgear. Maybe you need to start a separate thread about your subject of interest so as to further avoid derailing this thread.

So I guess you don't want to answer the question (a good one).

Nice dodge.

I can tell that someone is not an American by their headgear, sure. I am not PC, so I can GUESS that when it's some manuel laborer in a landscaping or concrete crew that the liklihood of a guy wearing a sombrero on that crew being an illegal is about 99.9%. You, being a PC lib, can of course say that since I can't prove the guy is illegal, we must assume he is not.

I, having a brain, view this differently.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

I don't think you understand what "free speech" entails. Nothing about "free speech" offers you an out for other crimes committed in the process -- similarly, nothing about "free speech" prevented Rosa Parks from being arrested (and, I believe, convicted) for having refused to sit at the back of the bus.

Civil disobedience is a form of conscoiusness-raising, but all the participants who aren't absolute idiots recognize that arrest, trial, and conviction is a risk of participating.

The question, then, is not whether stealing a US flag and replacing it with a Mexican flag is a political act. It is. As such, you couldn't make it a special crime, to be punished more severely than replacing a Mexican flag with a US flag. But as long as the laws against it are content-neutral (e.g., it's treated as any other petty theft), then the question THEN becomes whether or not it's worth prosecuting someone for this particular crime. An immigrant's rights activist would probably love a chance to get prosecuted (and get the attendant publicity) in exchange for the $50 fine.

In America.

Try that in just about any other country, most notably, any of the countries most of the illegals come from and see what happens.

Tokie

 

[tsg]

That's a fair response, but doesn't civil disobedience tend to be expressed in a form that affects property in some way? When 50,000 people stage a die-in and deny access even to emergency vehicles are they not stealing the property in a way?

Yes, and they should be convicted for it. That's the part you don't seem to get.

If there are flag burners violating ordinances banning open fires who aren't being prosecuted, it is the result of the authorities excercising judgment, not because of any right to free speech protecting the act.

What I'm getting at is it shouldn't matter what side a person is on when determining if their act was legitimate free speech or not.

It doesn't and nothing you've said has shown that it does.

We've had a lot of ruckus in my neck of the woods around the immigration issue and I'd heard of American flags being torn down and replaced with Mexican flags, and I considered that a form of free speech.

It's vandalism and theft. Freedom of speech doesn't insulate them from it. Freedom of speech means you can't be punished for what you say. It doesn't give you the right to break other laws while saying it. You can't be punished for saying "Bush sucks." You can be punished for painting it on my house. But so can the guy who paints "Bush rocks" on my house.

I have to really stretch to make myself see this as anything else. In both cases property rights have been violated...where is the line drawn?

With both of them on the same side, as it is.

 

[Mephisto]

Or, seemingly, back away from ones you stand no chance of winning.

Or possibly I find arguing with a Xenophobe as tiresome as arguing with a fundie X-tian! Nothing new to see here.

You sure did make a huge-ass leap of logic there to come up with the idea that I'm a psuedo-patriotic conservative. You seem to think that the fact he's a veteran or on the other side of some random argument with you means that he's diseased. What sort of bigot does that make you now?

He's diseased because the FIRST thing he reached for to make his point was a weapon. What ever happened to civility and communication? He could have talked to the business owner and made his point much better, but he wouldn't have gotten himself on camera. Considering that very valid option do you believe he was more interested in making a scene than making his point?

I simply threw the same aspersion at you that you decided to throw at a veteran. Would you prefer I call you baby killer and spit on you? I'm sure at some time or another you ate food that could have saved a starving Ethiopian. Are we going to make this argument with ad-homs or logic?

Sticks & stones - that veteran and I both fought to defend your right to say whatever you like. Spitting on me will get you a big lunger in return and I KNOW I'll win - I've got MRSA. How would you like to join the ranks of diseased veterans?

The reversion to lex talonis is implied by any system that denies equal justice. This is hardly a conservative position but one taken by leftists since the English Civil War. The question is simply one of comparing two acts and deciding if either or both are protected speech and why.

Freedom of speech doesn't cover stealing private property, and that's precisely what that veteran did. It doesn't take a huge stretch of the imagination to guess what would have happened had the ignorant business owner tried to stop the Vet from stealing the flag.

Why is cutting down and rescuing this flag in symbolic defense of the nation any less free speech than someone else burning the flag in symbolic attack?

Because it was stealing! I'm sure had the "rescuing" veteran been interviewed, he would have admitted to NOT informing the ignorant business owner that he was in violation. He simply grabbed a weapon and made a big deal of it, thereby bringing other rabid people to his defense.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

i think you are wrong. Do graffiti artists have protection under the 1st amendment?

Yes, absolutely. As long as they own the structure or item which they paint.

Should political campaigners be able to tear down the posters of their opponents?

Of course they can, I mean... assuming it's on their house building. If it's on pubic property I think it could go either way. The poster itself might be considered littering to begin with. If it was just stuck on someone else's stuff, then I guess it would be the owner of the structure it's on.

Preventing someone from exercising their right to free speech is not an act of free speech.

Physically stopping them by force... no that would not be free speech. Talking over them would be. Although some noise ordnances might come into play at some point. And of course, you can always challenge them or call their speech whatever you think of it.

Vandalism is not an act of protecetd speech.

No it's not. But you're not free to do things that would be illegal in and of themselves to express yourself. It's the content of the message that is what is protected.

Burning a flag should be prosecuted if burning a cloth of a different pattern in the same manner is illegal. If someone burns a flag and it violates regulations on open flames or burning of items then it should be prosecuted as such. But if someone burns a flag in a manner which would not be illegal if they burned a cloth of the same type and size in the same manner then it's legal.

The fact that it's a flag cannot be challenged because that is the message. But that protected message does not entitle you to illegal manners of conveying it.

 

[Mephisto]

I, having no brain, view this differently.

Tokie

There you go, fixed that for you. Oh, and by the way, it's "M-A-N-U-A-L" labor.

 

[Mephisto]

We've had a lot of ruckus in my neck of the woods around the immigration issue and I'd heard of American flags being torn down and replaced with Mexican flags, . . .

Certainly something like that would make the news if a ZZ Top wanna-be can cut down a flag and make the news - do you have a link?

 

[tsg]

Legal, ethical, or otherwise, the guy who flew the Mexican flag above the American one is a douchebag, making a statement of contempt for the country in which he resides.

You have no way of knowing his intentions and therefore no basis on which to make that statement.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have no way of knowing his intentions and therefore no basis on which to make that statement.

His intentions are not relevant to the reality of the meanings of symbols.