lol!I started nodding off after the first paragraph. Is there a cliff-notes version?
Are you attempting to conflate flag burning with fire safety laws?
Like what?No I don't have to.
But there are more than just safety concerns with reguard to open burning.
Just for the sake of argument, perhaps you could define "open burning" so there's no misunderstanding.Open burning is illegal in most municlipalities already and it is settled law.
Depends on the nature of the law in question. I live in a serious wildfire zone. I'm not insensitive to safety concerns about burning stuff. But you say safety is not an issue, so I want to know if what you're talking about is BS or a legitimate concern.Question to you is, do you think a "freedom of expression" arguement is always a good reason to override our know laws?
Flag burning isn't an "expression" issue. It is classififed as one by leftists.
Open burning is illegal in most incorported areas across this nation.
A true conservative is for fair and even treatment under those laws.
Leftists think that should not apply to them.
Flag burning is protected speech according to a majority of the Supreme Court.
See Texas v. Johnson and
Take note of how the "leftist" Justice Stevens voted.
So that was worth a negative rep ?
Flag burning is protected speech according to a majority of the Supreme Court.
See Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman.
Take note of how the "leftist" Justice Stevens voted.
Like what?
Just for the sake of argument, perhaps you could define "open burning" so there's no misunderstanding.
Depends on the nature of the law in question. I live in a serious wildfire zone. I'm not insensitive to safety concerns about burning stuff. But you say safety is not an issue, so I want to know if what you're talking about is BS or a legitimate concern.
And it ought not to be. Execuse me if I'd pee pee all over the Supreme court, and they're UnAmerican rulings.
So that was worth a negative rep ?
Yes, ignorance of legal reality and hostility to my First Amendment rights is worth a neg rep if anything is, yes.
Come on. LOL
The list is long why municilpilities have those types of ordiances.
Any fire in the city or even some township and county limits.
Of course I do. I've already mentioned that I live under a serious wildfire threat. We take burning very seriously in Oklahoma... for SAFETY reasons.You do know some of those laws exist?
If flag burning protestors had been charged under open burning ordinances instead of "flag descretion" laws the whole "fredom of expression" idea would be moot.
Originally Posted by Hotdoger
Come on. LOL
The list is long why municilpilities have those types of ordiances.
Then it should be no problem for you to rattle off a dozen or so non-safety justifications.
Quote:
Any fire in the city or even some township and county limits.
"Any" fire includes cooking on gas stoves. Your definition is too broad.
And this would have been a perversion of the law
I have not defined "open burning" ordinaces. That has already been done by those municipalities that passed them.
And laws of all sorts have been "broken" and the breaking justified by application of constitutional rights. Example: public decency laws overturned by strippers claiming a right to free expression. I'm no lawyer, but US v O'Brien (1968) appears to require that laws pass a 4-part test (one which seems pretty reasonable to me) before they can justifiably stifle speech:No because that is what actually happens. The reasoning by the offender behind it could vary, just as they would for any crime.
Under this logic, I don't see a non-safety reason being sufficient to violate a person's right to free expression, which is what you're claiming would fly. I can easily see "fire hazard", a safety reason, but that's not what you've been saying.The regulation must 1) be within the constitutional power of the government to enact, 2) further an important or substantial government interest, 3) that interest must be unrelated to the suppression of speech (or "content neutral", as later cases have phrased it), and 4) prohibit no more speech than is essential to further that interest.