The Only Man in Washington who Stands Up Against the Anarchists

“We ought to have legislation, that if you burn the American flag, you go to jail for one year. One year.” Anti-american Donald Trump

I, and probably a majority of patriotic Americans, agree with him that burning the flag is hate speech. I'm the kind of American who feels free speech doesn't include setting fire to flags, burning down any of our country including the desecration of monuments nor the destruction of the private and public property of others. Further, the murdering of police is only an effective way to lead toward anarchy. So, were I you, I'd probably block me. I'm someone whose father fought so you don't speak either German or Japanese, today. My flaw, to you, is I harbor a love of the nearest thing to Utopia that has ever been created. It's not Shangri-la, Erehwon nor the Garden of Eden. It's the United States of America, Bobbi Boi, and I thank God for the allowing me to know this little bit of Heaven on Earth.

This is so stupid. Hate speech is expressly condoned under the first amendment of the Constitution, especially flag burning, which the Supreme Court ruled was constitutionally protected speech in Texas v Johnson. Being patriotic is not grandstanding and fetishizing the flag. What is patriotic is recognizing that we live in a free country where burning the flag is allowed, and we as Americans, have a duty to defend those who express speech by any means necessary whether it's a nazi or an antifa member. By fundamentally opposing a core value of the Constitution, which itself is a core value of what makes America great, you are BY DEFINITION anti-American.

Ah... now I will never see your hate for America again, ANTIFA FAN!

Defending freedom of speech=supporting antifa. Got it.

Thank you for allowing me too see who you are. Good-bye. Hopefully forever.

Thank you for exposing your lack of critical thought.

I'm sorry, but no! This isn't even about patriotism or politics any more! Common decency, a little respect, basic politeness should keep you from burning, defacing, destroying etc.Also, burning any country's flag turns that flag into a fetish - for destruction.

It's also constitutionally protected speech. A government that censors speech/expression for things they don't like does not support freedom of speech/expression. Whether you agree with burning the flag or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, burning the flag in the United States is and should be 100% legal whether you like it or not.

We're talking bout different things here. Whether burning flags is legal or not, is irrelevant. It's an act of destruction. Maybe read my original comment again, just to see we're moving on different planes? I don't want to repeat everything&you would be bored. Anyway, what's the point in talking about something hypothetical, like freedom of speech? Whatever the laws might state, there is no freedom of speech, otherwise an editor wouldn't lose his job for saying "buildings matter, too". Good night

1. So what if flag burning is an act of destruction? That doesn't mean anything.

2. An editor losing his job over "buildings matter too" is not a violation of constitutional free speech because it is a private entity doing the firing, not the government. However I will agree with you that under this circumstance, the editor was probably unjustly fired.

sorry, wasn't online for some days. You're riding Constitutional Free Speech like it was a hobby horse, you can't see/aren't willing to accept that it's been lost along with most other clear lines, (happens-it's just weird to see so much conviction+energy put in such a hollow prop). This is why I say we speak along planes that pass too far from each other&will never meet, we have almost no base of understanding each other.
To say an act of destruction doesn't mean anything isn't acceptable, in this case, combined with the rest of yr opinions. Somebody stating that no matter how wrong a thing is, it's still ok if it's anchored in the Constitution (yr 2nd comment), is grisly, sort of monstrous.
Without wishing to insult you, I'd prefer an end to this exchange.

“Somebody stating that no matter how wrong a thing is, it’s still ok if it’s anchored in the constitution is grisly, sort of monstrous.”
Except burning the flag isn’t. If it’s your property, I don’t see any inherent problem. You can do whatever you want with your property; the government cannot and should not infringe upon that. If you want to say that burning the flag is an act of destruction, grisly, and monstrous, then any destruction of someone’s *own* property would be that as well. I don’t think you want to go down that rabbit hole of the government subjectively designating monstrous things and micromanaging someone daily life.

Also, no one said that if it’s in the constitution it’s by definition right and just. There’s a reason why amendments exist. I personally think that money should not be considered speech and an amendment to change that should be made accordingly. However, very few people will object to an individual’s right to freedom of speech/expression that doesn’t include money. It’s one of the fundamental and core principles of what makes America great.

please, don't you get I'm not talking about property? Or the flag? You start yr 2nd paragraph by contradicting yourself - and then you appear to stop making sense. I get you don't agree with the freedom of speech=money equation. For me the existence of that equation and your bringing it up is a gist of the different vectors of our positions.
Quote>However, very few people will object to an individual’s right to freedom of speech/expression that doesn’t include money. It’s one of the fundamental and core principles of what makes America great.< Contradiction within contradiction, do you really mean that? I still prefer to think we're talking bout different things. In the light of that, still not wishing to insult you, but seeing you ignore my request, you leave me no choice. Further comments will not reach me, you offer nothing I wish to discuss.

and if they dont agree with me, i use the Special Forces on our on citizens