Freedom of speech is speech, as in verbally saying something, you cant to say something wrong about America be my guest but dont burn national symbols.
No, freedom of speech does not just include verbal speech, it includes written speech, symbolic speech, etc. Most forms of expression are constitutionally called speech.
Burning the flag is no diffrent than burning the white house for your freedom of speech. In truth the freedom of speech has gone so far, anything is game to prove your point. But speech is verbal, not symbolic, i bet if you asked the founding fathers what they meant they'd flat out say the right to speak agasint tyranny, to print to protest. I highly doubt they would say burning national symbols was included.
Nope, they would, and that's irrelevant as symbolic speech is clearly protected, not just verbal speech, and it's been that way since the beginning of our nation. They would agree with Voltaire - they would find it absolutely offensive, but they would defend to the death the offender's right to burn it.
candle said:
By your defination burning the US consition and bill of rights because I dont agree with it, is also right. No you sir do not understand what a patriot it, a patriot stands up for the nation agasint the odds and popularity, and a patriot supports his nation above his own life. The Supreme court has done more harm to the bill of rights and the American dream than any other event past or present ever did
Burning a copy of the US constitution and bill of rights because you don't agree with it is perfectly constitutional. You're mistaking what is
offensive with what is legal.
A prerequisite for patriotism within the United States is to agree with the fundamental principles of what our great nation stands for. One of these is the fundamental human right of freedom of speech, possibly
the most fundamental right of our nation. If you don't, then you're not a patriot.
candle said:
well if there to uphold popular opion, when have the American people ever condoned or supported the burning a flag. You just proved my point the Supreme court went agasint the popular view for there own means to appease a minority that actully has no say on national laws because they are not in the Majority
One of the fundamental principles of our nation is the protection of the minority against the will of the majority.
candle said:
Assault under our laws is assaulting another person. The problem is illegals are protected under the law offically. By nature they are actully criminals and are not protected under US law. Nice loophole there actully. Look at the past cases people who are violent to aliens tend to get let off with a warning. What wrong with attacking a criminal, to me an illegal is just as dangrous as serial killer.
Criminals are protected under US law, and non-citizens are protected under US law when it is within US juristiction.
Fourteenth Amendment said:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note that it says
person, not citizen, not lawful citizen, nothing.
Person. If it is human, and it is in jurisdiction of the United States of America, no state (or federal) government may deprive a man of those rights. As for attacking another criminal, it's wrong because it's illegal and immoral.
By the fact that you don't comprehend the constitution, even in just the plain text, you're not a patriot. If you assault another person in blatant disregard for the law, you are not a patriot.