Well, this is the deep south we're talking about here.
Flag Desecration at Georgia school. Veteran arrested while trying to stop it.
- Thread starter ……forgetit
- Start date
- Status
Well, this is the deep south we're talking about here.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Exactly what I was going to say. I had a friend that gave a speech in high school about the first amendment and how great it was to live in a country where speech is protected to such a level that you can throw the nation's flag on the ground and step on it without any legal repercussions, after which he did just that to the horror of the faculty.... but they did nothing because his point was valid.
The freedom of speech in this country is protected to such a level that you can protest the death of soldiers with 'I hate fags' signs, you can burn holy books, desecrate flags, etc without fear of imprisonment or other legal repercussions. Some of you don't seem to get that. That soldier that stole the flag from the protestors fought for their right to trample on the flag.
Did the air force girl go crazy, riot, kill people and escalate a harmless event into local hysteria and violence? If yes then yes that's an absolutely valid question.
Ah okay, then I get it. I misinterpreted what he said.
So what would you say is the acceptable line to draw in terms of irrational response to disrespect towards inanimate objects? Theft? Physical violence?
Do all Muslims who have issue with Koran desecration, do all the things you just mentioned?
While I get not calling someone you see as holding you down a friend, would you call them an enemy? That's a bridge too far IMO and he does just that.
Byakuya769
Member
Set the trap, just to see dude react.
maquiladora
Member
People getting upset over symbols being "disrespected" is the dumbest thing. Doesn't matter if it's a book of fairy tales that people put religious belief into or a flag which represents nothing more than the current political ownership of the parcel of land you just happened to be born on.
Think of it this way. What if it was someone disrespecting your family's name and honor? They're not insulting you directly in any way, but your family is coming under fire for whatever reason....let's say a distant relative did something stupid that upset everyone, but your family is getting blamed for it.
That is how some people feel about their country and any symbol that represents their country, especially if they fought for their country.
If my family permitted the discrimination of an entire race of people, I would be considering if my family was something worth respecting. The last thing I'd do is take action against those trying to fight against it.
But that's just me.
ryutaro's mama
Member
I'd like to imagine it was John Luthor that set the trap here.
It's harmless rhetoric and doesn't cross a line. For example, I know damn well my wife's stepdad considers me "one of the good ones". Though we've always been respectful, kind, and friendly towards each other, I've seen what he's posted on FB in regards to "thugs" and these police killings. Basically I'm a vetted black and had I been a stranger and police statistic that "didn't follow orders" I'd be worthless in his eyes. In the abstract, how is he not my enemy? I don't hate him but he's still an enemy. Christ didn't hate anyone but he sure had enemies.
Updated Daily Times article:
The article has the statement I posted above, along with this:
http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/n...cle_8fade244-e872-11e4-a933-57738f4c3d97.html
The article has the statement I posted above, along with this:
http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/n...cle_8fade244-e872-11e4-a933-57738f4c3d97.html
I thought flag was all about freedom ?
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Or way too much patriotism and especially too much military worship in this country.
Why would you sympathize with the veteran?
SugarDaddy
Member
reminds me of futurama
so im just going to go ahead and side with zoidberg here and say trampling flags is okay by me
so im just going to go ahead and side with zoidberg here and say trampling flags is okay by me
I was in the air force and I wouldn't give a crap what someone wanted to do with the flag. If they want to fold it up and use it as a napkin at an all you can eat ribs night BBQ that's their right.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It doesn't seem to be relevant to the original topic of this thread, but go ahead
shadowsdarknes
Member
I know the military is very fond of flags.
And I don't particularly mind that.
And I can't say I'd ever do that to the flag.
But you don't get to steal someone else's property because it offends you.
It would be far worse if the police were helping the woman steal the flag.
I almost just choked on my tongue laughing. Patriotism is, unfortunately, the last thing we lack in this country. It's a toxic emotion and the world would be far better without a blind allegiance to the place where you were born.
Then there's the minor fact that acting out against the first amendment is decidedly unpatriotic.
shadowsdarknes
Member
It doesn't excuse what the woman did.
But it might suggest that this group is a bit radical.
And that's the job of the police and the school to determine whether or not this is going too far. Not chair force girl
How is it not relevant? He was the protester in this situation. He was on campus yesterday during the flag rally held by students spreading his message again to anyone who could hear. There is enough evidence to suggest that his speech was threatening and thus, not protected by the 1st amendment. Now they've found a gun that belonged to him on campus and he is wanted and at large.
I don't see how threads of a developing story are not relevant here.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
That's a separate issue from someone stealing the protesters' flag because they didn't agree with an expression of discontent using said flag.
YesNOnoNOYes
Member
I think the thread is mostly focused on the ideas of free speech and symbol-worship patriotism. So some people might find other angles a little off-tangent.
Even if the protester is breaking firearm possession laws, it does not really change the dialog around the thread that is centered around free speech > theft.
A lack of patriotism in the US? Really? Only if you think it's gone all the way over to jingoism.
Passionate defense of violent criminals is SOP around here.
Erin S Kittens
Member
I must've missed the part where a violent crime was committed, can you link me?
Mercury Fred
Banned
Wow, the woman who stole the flag was a terrifying combo of entitled & ignorant. I can't help but wonder if the cops wouldn't have been so gentle with her if she'd been a person of color.
Not against free speech but you are sad that people can't sympathize with someone who took an oath to support and defend the constitution, then tried to stop the very freedom she swore to defend?
I guess I assumed supporting the people's right to burn the flag in protest was patriotic.
I'd say there is an abundance of chauvinism, not a lack of patriotism.
The guy with the gun is a violent criminal? He had a gun, the story mentions nothing about a violent crime being committed. Where are you getting this information? Please share.
……forgetit
Member
We're hands down the most patriotic developed country, I'd say our current levels boarder on dangerous
Gordon Shumway
Banned
He Blake..
goldenpp72
Member
I love America but do not care if someone wipes their ass with the flag, weird how so many people worship a piece of cloth, I mean I understand the mentality but it's stupid.
He is.
Don't you guys utter some kind of prayer to the flag every morning in school? is that still done? The pledge of allegiance?
Indoctrination like that is pretty powerful.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
McSquishin
Banned
I personally find it amazing that this thread has made it to 12 pages without anyone saying what I'm about to say. No, Ms. Manhart was not violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by taking that flag. First lets look at the relevant excerpt from the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No where in that does it say that a private entity does not have the right to curtail free speech. I can give an example. As an employer I am fully within my rights to fire an employee if I find their speech objectionable, like say if an employee were to call a customer a nigger. Calling someone a nigger is not illegal, but I'm well within my rights as a private citizen to fire the employee and therefore punish them for their free speech which in turn is a form of suppressing their free speech. The only thing that the First Amendment puts constraints on is the power of the government, nothing more.
To bring this within the context of this website I don't hear anyone complaining about free speech suppression when someone is banned from this website for the things that they say that are not in any way illegal.
There is absolutely no hypocrisy in stating that you support the First Amendment and support this woman's actions as there is no conflict between the two. Ms. Manhart is not a part of the military anymore, nor is she a police officer, nor hold any kind of other governmental authority. Her only crimes are theft and resisting arrest. I completely support her actions, but would be totally against an authority of the government doing what she did.
Yes, Ms. Manharts actions were illegal, but that doesn't make them wrong. At least not in my opinion as what is and isn't morally right is subjective. As a veteran myself who is no longer bound by any rule or law to respect this type of protest I would have been right there alongside her knowing full well that my actions were against the law but also knowing full well that some consequences are worth it as price for doing what is right.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No where in that does it say that a private entity does not have the right to curtail free speech. I can give an example. As an employer I am fully within my rights to fire an employee if I find their speech objectionable, like say if an employee were to call a customer a nigger. Calling someone a nigger is not illegal, but I'm well within my rights as a private citizen to fire the employee and therefore punish them for their free speech which in turn is a form of suppressing their free speech. The only thing that the First Amendment puts constraints on is the power of the government, nothing more.
To bring this within the context of this website I don't hear anyone complaining about free speech suppression when someone is banned from this website for the things that they say that are not in any way illegal.
There is absolutely no hypocrisy in stating that you support the First Amendment and support this woman's actions as there is no conflict between the two. Ms. Manhart is not a part of the military anymore, nor is she a police officer, nor hold any kind of other governmental authority. Her only crimes are theft and resisting arrest. I completely support her actions, but would be totally against an authority of the government doing what she did.
Yes, Ms. Manharts actions were illegal, but that doesn't make them wrong. At least not in my opinion as what is and isn't morally right is subjective. As a veteran myself who is no longer bound by any rule or law to respect this type of protest I would have been right there alongside her knowing full well that my actions were against the law but also knowing full well that some consequences are worth it as price for doing what is right.
McSquishin
Banned
Private property, public property, neither matters in regards to the point I was making. That being that her actions do not violate the First Amendment.
- Status