Criminalizing flag burning

[Anonymous]

Trump suggested criminalizing flag burning and there was outrage at the suggestion.

But in 2006, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill to do the same with little reaction. One of the co-sponsors was Barbara Boxer.

That bill (S.1911, The Flag Protection Act of 2005) was co-sponsored by Clinton, and proposed in part:

Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

Whatever one feels about the merits of criminalizing flag burning there is a hypocrisy in the outrage when Trump suggests it even while it was, for the most part, ignored when Clinton actually proposed a bill to do the same in 2006 - an effort that failed.

[Anonymous]

We've had multiple threads about this. I hate it when liberals on this board make a new post on every single variation of a general theme. Similarly, those conservatives among us should also refrain from duplicating threads.

[Anonymous]

78 Democrats agreed at the time:

https://votesmart.org/bill/3270/8073/27048/jack-murtha-voted-yea-passage-h-j-res-10-flag-desecration-resolution#8073

[Anonymous]

That was just smoke and mirrors. Who knows if Trump even believes that. It was a distraction from any focus on his in precedented business conflicts of interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was just smoke and mirrors. Who knows if Trump even believes that. It was a distraction from any focus on his in precedented business conflicts of interest.

* unprecedented

[Anonymous]

Boxer co-sponsored??

Thanks. I was not aware of that fact!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump suggested criminalizing flag burning and there was outrage at the suggestion.

But in 2006, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill to do the same with little reaction. One of the co-sponsors was Barbara Boxer.

That bill (S.1911, The Flag Protection Act of 2005) was co-sponsored by Clinton, and proposed in part:

Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

Whatever one feels about the merits of criminalizing flag burning there is a hypocrisy in the outrage when Trump suggests it even while it was, for the most part, ignored when Clinton actually proposed a bill to do the same in 2006 - an effort that failed.

Reprehensible. But the 2005 act proposed this only with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism, all of which are criminal activity. The law never proposed banning it as pure speech, since this would be clearly unconstitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump suggested criminalizing flag burning and there was outrage at the suggestion.

But in 2006, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill to do the same with little reaction. One of the co-sponsors was Barbara Boxer.

That bill (S.1911, The Flag Protection Act of 2005) was co-sponsored by Clinton, and proposed in part:

Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

Whatever one feels about the merits of criminalizing flag burning there is a hypocrisy in the outrage when Trump suggests it even while it was, for the most part, ignored when Clinton actually proposed a bill to do the same in 2006 - an effort that failed.

Reprehensible. But the 2005 act proposed this only with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism, all of which are criminal activity. The law never proposed banning it as pure speech, since this would be clearly unconstitutional.

I have an american flag flying outside my house. I have a hard time believing that the government will check themselves and correctly apply these standards. What's the standard for establishing whether a flag burning incident was for purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence? I mean when people burn flags, they are sometimes doing so in a context of a protest or some other mass event with people feeling quite emotional. What if a flag was burned, and then some minutes later, violence ensued. How do you tie the violence to the flag burning? Seems rather nebulous and very exploitable to a prosecutor.

[Anonymous]

I mean, why focus on the flag? Why not:

"Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, anything shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump suggested criminalizing flag burning and there was outrage at the suggestion.

But in 2006, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill to do the same with little reaction. One of the co-sponsors was Barbara Boxer.

That bill (S.1911, The Flag Protection Act of 2005) was co-sponsored by Clinton, and proposed in part:

Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

Whatever one feels about the merits of criminalizing flag burning there is a hypocrisy in the outrage when Trump suggests it even while it was, for the most part, ignored when Clinton actually proposed a bill to do the same in 2006 - an effort that failed.

Reprehensible. But the 2005 act proposed this only with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism, all of which are criminal activity. The law never proposed banning it as pure speech, since this would be clearly unconstitutional.

I have an american flag flying outside my house. I have a hard time believing that the government will check themselves and correctly apply these standards. What's the standard for establishing whether a flag burning incident was for purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence? I mean when people burn flags, they are sometimes doing so in a context of a protest or some other mass event with people feeling quite emotional. What if a flag was burned, and then some minutes later, violence ensued. How do you tie the violence to the flag burning? Seems rather nebulous and very exploitable to a prosecutor.

That's why we have judges and juries. In any event, the legislation simply codified the existing legal standard established by SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Boring topic.

I'll just let the great Molly Ivins speak:

"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump suggested criminalizing flag burning and there was outrage at the suggestion.

But in 2006, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill to do the same with little reaction. One of the co-sponsors was Barbara Boxer.

That bill (S.1911, The Flag Protection Act of 2005) was co-sponsored by Clinton, and proposed in part:

Any person who shall intentionally threaten or intimidate any person or group of persons by burning, or causing to be burned, a flag of the United States shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

Whatever one feels about the merits of criminalizing flag burning there is a hypocrisy in the outrage when Trump suggests it even while it was, for the most part, ignored when Clinton actually proposed a bill to do the same in 2006 - an effort that failed.

That's very different than stripping someone's American citizenship!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boring topic.

I'll just let the great Molly Ivins speak:

"I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”

you realize she's dead, right?

[Anonymous]

We have a First Amendment not just to protect unobjectionable speech but rather objectionable speech in particular. Personally I'd like to kick a flag burner in the nuts, but that's why we have the Bill of Rights.