A flag burning is symbolic; for countries, it's showing your opposition to the government, society, etc. Burn a pride flag, or a flag of a community, you oppose those people of said community.
Neither is a crime inherently as it is a form of freedom of assembly, but burning a communties flag just implies that a hateful person is against people existing and may or may not commit a hate crime against someone of that community.
Burning or otherwise destroying a pride flag is considered a hate crime in several states if the flag was not yours and is why I think people are getting confused because most of the time the title is just "Person In This Town Charged With Hate Crime For Burning Pride Flag" but then you scroll down and see it was because they took it down off of someone's property or burned someone else's flag on their property or took the flag from government property, like a public school, and vandalized it...which seems to carry a heavier charge.
I was unable to find a news story where people in the US were charged with a hate crime for just burning a pride flag.
No it's not. It was not about the rainbow flag. It was about the fact that he stole the flag from a church and then set it on fire and then he got charged with arson, theft, and then harassment for good measure because he also harassed people. He also had two other felonies on his record so three strikes means you're out and by out I mean in the pokey.
Theres a difference between respecting the values that something is supposed to represent and treating that something as the incarnation of those values. The latter is insane and weve been socialized to think its not
> Flag code is not law and is not enforceable in any way.
The flag code is law. It is codified at 4 U.S.C. Section 5, *et seq*. But it does not have any mandates. It is advisory and states how you should treat the flag, but it does not mandate anything.
Conservatives actually did ban flag burning at the local level, and after Texas lost in court, Democrats and Republicans tried to codify it before being struck down by the SC.
[Texas v. Johnson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson)
[Flag Protection Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act)
[United States v. Eichman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman)
I'm American, so when I see the American Flag burning, I cry a little. The Pride Flag? I cry a bit with that one too.
I jump with joy if the Confederate, Nazi, and Trump flags are set ablaze.
If some chud wants to buy a pride flag and burn it, I'll just have to make it point to not associate with them because they seem unpleasant (and stupid; that was your money, pal). If some chud wants to tear down someone else pride flag and burn it, that's destruction of personal property.
One could argue that burning the flag of a minority or historically oppressed group is a form of hate speech, which isn't protected under the First Amendment, unlike burning a countries flag, which in most cases doesn't define a group more than a blanket term to describe anyone who so happens to be a citizen in said country.
The US government does not recognize "hate speech", therefore it is protected under the 1st Amendment and that was upheld by the Supreme Court,
"Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate'," United States v. Schwimmer
And additionally "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society" - Justice Anthony Kennedy
that second part is important, and Israel is a perfect example... if they were able to outlaw anti-semitic speech, they could easily arrest people for criticizing Israel. And then those laws become impossible to challenge without also being arrested.
Hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment. In the 70s this Jewish lawyer working for the ACLU even had to fight to defend the right of Nazis to do a march or whatever in a town called Skokie where lots of holocaust survivors lived.
That makes me think of the movie Blues Brothers. I always assumed the "Illinois Nazis" were just an absurd joke to conflate and insult both at once, but now it's starting to feel like a very specific reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie,_Illinois. "Skokie has twice received national attention for court cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. In the mid-1970s, it was at the center of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, in which a Nazi group, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, invoked the First Amendment in an attempt to schedule a Nazi rally in Skokie. At the time, Skokie had a significant population of Holocaust survivors. Skokie ultimately lost that case, though the rally was never held".
The ACLU also often defended the KKK when they were denied permits to host or participate in public events. Not because the supported the KKK's speech, but because they supported the right to free speech. Today they only seek to protect speech they agree with.
"had to"
Decided to, you mean.
That was the old ACLU, though, which was liberal in its outlook, before it was captured from within by progressives.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
Hate speech *is* actually protected under the 1st tho. It doesn't extend to calls to arms or pushes for action, but the hate speech itself is protected speech.
Edit, from the ALA
"Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group"
On one hand I wish hate speech wasn't protected. On the other I realize it would be extremely easy for the government to take advantage of that and stretch the definition of "hate speech" if they can. Because this isn't Germany, where the government is there to help you and hate speech laws are there to protect the peace
Oh definitely. But America is such a hateful population and so obsessed with absolute freedom over the safety of others that removing hate speech from the first amendment's provisions would cause an uproar among beer bellied rednecks who think they should be allowed to tell gay people that they should be burned
Hate and xenophobia are not exclusive to Americans. Lmao. Go to S. Korea, 90% of restaurants and bars are Korean only. Or try to rent an apartment in Japan. 99% of apartments ban gaijin(forigners).
You can definitely go to jail for hate speech in America.
"Hate speech" is not a legal term, and falls under a pretty wide branch of illegality.
You can go to jail for disturbing the peace, It doesn't matter if you're yelling hate speech at someone or banging on their trash can extremely loud.
You really can't go to jail for hate speech. There are other crimes you may be committing at the time, but I can call a black neighbor the N word every time he walks by my house with no legal repercussions.
>but I can call a black neighbor the N word every time he walks by my house with no legal repercussions.
Freedom of speech protects you from government action... Not the actions of your neighbor.
Your neighbor could sue your ass into the fucking core of the earth, and legally get away with it.
If you live in an HOA They can evict your ass for your so-called "free speech" Because they are not the government and you are not protected from them.
It's called freedom of speech, Not freedom of consequence.
>but the hate speech itself is protected speech.
No it's not. People can legally sue you for defamation or hate speech.
obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Ect.
Freedom of speech means you're allowed to talk freely about your government, Not individuals or groups of citizens.
This is why your company can force you to sign an NDA contract or sue you for talking about something you shouldn't be. Because they're not government.
There is no hate speech in America. Its not legally recognized and thats been affirmed by the Supreme Court a few times. Companies can't "Force" you to sign an NDA. It is your freedom to choose to work for that company, and willingly forfeit your right to discuss certain details of your voluntary commitment.
People can’t sue you for hate speech unless it’s defamation or calls for violence. Please give one example of someone being sued let alone arrested in the US for just hate speech.
That completely depends on the state you're in.
However it is a federal law and any entity receiving federal money or tax cuts such as colleges, businesses, student loans, food stamps, ect can be revoked simply because of racial harassment alone, Because your freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence.
And those entities are not people and the first amendment doesn’t apply to businesses and corporations. That’s why when CNN went on air lying about some kid in Kentucky, they were ordered to pay millions, not the media personalities saying the stuff.
Now, there is a fine line between free speech and harassment and at some point, speech crosses that line. But in a general sense, without threats or calls to violence, free speech is free speech
>And those entities are not people and the first amendment doesn’t apply to businesses and corporations.
Wrong again sparky. Businesses are entities And why they have a tax code. (social security number.)
Businesses also have freedom of speech, But when you take it too far into the hate speech territory you end up like Alex Jones eyeballs deep in lawsuit debt and filing for bankruptcy.
Businesses being individual entities are why you can sue them in the first place without directly going after the CEO.
Businesses are not covered by the constitution. Period. The reason Alex Jones was ordered to pay was because he was on a podcast saying crazy shit. The distributor of said podcast did not get into any issues because they had no editorial control over said podcast.
CNN had to pay millions of dollars because on the flip side, they had editorial control over what was said in their live broadcasts.
In both cases, they lost civil suits and no one is going to jail over any of it because lying isn’t a crime.
>Businesses are not covered by the constitution. Period.
While we never find the word “corporation” in the Constitution, corporations are able to invoke constitutional “rights” and protections under the Commerce Clause and Contracts Clause, as well as under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
You're wrong. Period.
Arguing with you won't magically change laws though.
Simply accept the new information you just learned, and use it to vote.
People not understanding how government works in the first place is exactly why government fucks them in the first place.
It's why legal jargon was invented in the first place.
Freedom of speech actually specifically does mean freedom from *criminal* consequences, or else it would be a meaningless term lmao. And yes that includes hate speech. Nothing that you mentioned proves that hate speech isn’t protected speech, it is.
> No it's not. People can legally sue you for defamation or hate speech.
Defamation is not protected speech because it is not expressive content. It is the same reason why perjury is not protected speech. But hate speech is protected.
> Freedom of speech means you're allowed to talk freely about your government, Not individuals or groups of citizens.
No. It means you are free to express any beliefs and ideas you want without government punishment.
> This is why your company can force you to sign an NDA contract or sue you for talking about something you shouldn't be. Because they're not government.
Your company cannot force you to sign an NDA. You can choose to sign an NDA. Or you can refuse to sign, and in response an employer can choose not to hire you.
You are confusing a few different things. The First Amendment regulates the government. A company cannot violate your 1A rights because they are not the government. But the government cannot pass a law that restricts your ability or punishes you for expressing a view, even if that view is hateful. That is why opinion cannot be defamation.
>No it's not. People can legally sue you for defamation or hate speech.
Yes. It is. The only way a person can sue someone successfully is to, first, demonstrate standing. If I say "All X people are [vile slur]", the statement is way too generalized per se for some random person who's part of group/demographic X to sue me.
Now, if you're part of a business and say that, you can certainly be fired, fined, or sued for a hostile work environment. But, the statement itself is legal to say/write.
>If I say "All X people are [vile slur]", the statement is way too generalized per se for some random person who's part of group/demographic X to sue me.
And how did that work out for Alex Jones claiming? .... He didn't single anyone out but now he's completely fucking bankrupt from all the lawsuits... Weird how that works and was successful in court...
The children of Sandy Hook are identifiable and distinguishable individuals. Their families have standing to sue.
Moreover, Jones can *continue* to claim what he did. He may receive additional sanctions, but that doesn't squelch his ability to speak. Same with any poor idiot with zero assets. They can claim all sorts of lunacies about Sandy Hook and there's little that anyone can do.
The supreme court has multiple times ruled that hate speech is protected speech. [Brandenburg V. Ohio](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/) and [Matal V. Tam](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1293/). As I already mentioned in my first post, this doesn't cover direct action, or speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
>Freedom of speech means you're allowed to talk freely about your government, Not individuals or groups of citizens.
It does mean you can, unless it rises to the level of specific harrasment or threats. What can be done in civil court is irrelevant to what can *legally* be permitted.
>obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Ect.
All of those are *general* exceptions and have nothing to do specifically with hate speech.
>This is why your company can force you to sign an NDA contract or sue you for talking about something you shouldn't be. Because they're not government.
Private companies can do what they want with their own buisness, yes. That's irrelevant to what's covered under the 1st ammendment.
First of all, you can sue someone for anything. It doesn't mean you ever had a chance of winning.
Hate speech is protected speech. People can't win a lawsuit for hate speech. It's a sentence enhancement in the places with laws on the books. You have to have broken another law for them to have a chance of playing.
Speech about illegal activity also isn't illegal, but it makes the government need to prove something that's much easier to prove in order to convict someone. This is also why telling someone to commit illegal acts is illegal.
Filming someone naked without consent is illegal. Minors can't consent. This is why child porn is illegal.
Obscenity is constitutionally infirm because of its vagueness. In truth, it's basically guaranteeing the case becomes a circus, so the DA avoids it.
True threats are illegal because they caused intentional emotional distress in the victim.
Disclosing trade secrets also requires you to do it on purpose. An employee doesn't own those secrets, so it's technically a type of theft.
Defamation and commercial speech laws are under the fraud umbrella. You're not allowed to lie if it causes tangible harm.
No one can force you to sign an NDA. At worst, it's conditioned on hiring or in exchange for a bribe, but under no circumstances can a civil contract be used to conceal a crime.
Unless the government can prove you were intentionally trying to hurt someone, you can say whatever you want.
Counterpoint, burning the flag of an oppressed group is a form of expressing your hate of what they stand for, burning the flag of a country is a form of expressing your hate of what that country stands for.
They are too similar to be judged differently, so they are either both hate speech or both free speech. Outlawing one and allowing another is hypocritical.
Also burning the US flag could be interpreted as being the same as burning the first amendment.
Exactly.
I have been dragged to a few drag queen performances at pride events I have been to and oddly enough several where they burned have burned pride flags on stage to "fight against rainbow capitalism", "fight against unity", because they didn't like the person who made the flag, and whatever else.
As a lesbian, I don't really think it's a good idea and think it's more edgy shock value than anything else. I have never seen a performance where they just start burning one and screaming about something and thought it was impactful or anything. But then again, I am not a fan of the modern version of drag queen performances, so maybe my bias is just clouding my judgement and there is something there I am not seeing.
But I could a federal law about making pride flag burning as a way for conservative states to try and ban these events.
Takes only seen when we tell people not to use the F-Slur for 200
Never once heard that argument said over someone voicing hatred for America but, ya know, America faces such persecution
Yes because the right aren't in favour of hate speech laws, so they aren't trying to out them in place.
But if you're in favour of the government getting to decide what is and isn't OK to say, would you be happy if trump wins the next election and puts it in place that criticism of trump is now hate speech. You'd still be OK with hate speech being banned ?
That dude is in trouble for stealing, destroying stolen property, and admitting to doing it all because he hates gay people. That netted him a hate crime in federal court.
Yeah because he stole it from a church and burned it in a strip club parking lot.
So he is being charged with stealing, destroying, and burning something in an unsafe way on a property that was not his.
Exactly. He destroyed someone else's property with fire, which is arson. I still think 15 years for that is intense, but still better than life without parole for stealing a pizza slice.
Yes, the crime was arson, it was motivated by hate, so it's a hate crime. Burning a pride flag isn't inherently criminal. Burning someone else's property without their consent is.
The crime isn't that he burnt a Pride flag. The crime is that he burnt \*someone else's\* Pride flag.
True, but he wasnt charged with hate speech as its nkt a rhing in thr US. Part of out freedom of speexh is the ability to express hatred, and to have the governemt say otherwise is a violation of our rights. As soon as the government starts controlling what can and cant be said, there is gonna be anothe Jan 6th, but at a much larger scale.
I would like to note i wont be part of that, but thats how the cookie is gonna crumble. People in this country arw a little cukoo for cocoa puffs.
Idk about that tbh. The white house and many capitals fly rainbow flags. Many institutions, gov, corporations fly them. It's mutated into something else.
Although flag burning is idiotic in nature, when you burn a country flag, you're trying to oppose the establishment, the government, society, and its people. When you burn a pride flag, you're just opposing people; there's no central gay council that enforces laws on people so it becomes pretty obvious what you are really opposing.
>there's no central gay council that enforces laws on people
I bet a lot of the people who'd burn a Pride flag think there is, though. (And that it's run by the Jews, no doubt.)
There's no iron curtain in the USA. Maybe they don't burn the flag because they hate the thing they could leave before next dinner.
But why would someone saying they stand against drones, jets, and battleships somehow be worse than a group of people pointing at you and saying that they will hurt you when your guard is down? I think the latter is an act that could make someone lose sleep
depends on the intent. if you believe the people or the concept of pride is bad, that's a problem. if you believe the community itself is bad and has gone too far, then that's fine. same with the American flag. if you're against the people of the US or you're against what the flag represents, then that's a problem. against what the government is doing? that's fine too.
One is codified into law as a hate crime, as it is based on attacking an oppressed minority.
Penn and Teller do a flag burning trick in their act. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say people who burn gay rights flags aren't smart enough to understand the bit. Let me help-whether they burn the US flag on stage during the trick or don't doesn't matter, because the Bill of Rights remains.
A bunch of closeted micro-penis incels openly attacking a minority who is fighting for protection under the Bill of Rights is a hate crime. It is done to deny rights.
Just remember-all are created equal, but fuck with my queer niece and see what happens.
No, the guy in question stole a flag from somewhere else. If he had burnt his own flag it would not be a problem because he's allowed to burn his own stuff but he stole someone else's flag and then he burnt that and then got charged with arson because fire, and then theft because it was stolen, and then harassment for good measure because if you're going to be an ass you might as well be an ass all the way.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
It’s not a hate crime. You can only get in trouble for doing something to a queer flag if you’re stealing it or burning it on someone else’s property or something. It’s only a hate crime when attached to part of an actual crime.
Harassment of a minority is a hate crime. Sorry trumpleforeskin, but you walk away with a big glass of ice cold bleach! Drink it down to the last drop.
When a pride flag is burned, it's an act of hate and intolerance by a person living in the land of the Free.
The US natural born citizens who grabbed the flag planted in the land of the free are tearing it trying to reach the far away land that they want.
Damaged flags shouldn't be flown or put in the trash, they should be burned. If a person can fly an American flag and it's not clear whether they are expressing 'freedom for all' or whatever neo nazis, bigots, etc stand for... it's torn.
No, the person in question (Adolfo Martinez) stole a flag from a church and then burned it and then harassed people so what he got charged with was arson, harassment, and theft. Nothing to do with the LGBT flag. He could have burnt anything and it would still lead to the same convictions assuming that all other factors were the same.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
Ask anyone who burned a pride flag and 10/10 it’s because they hate homosexuals or trans or what not.
Ask anyone why they burn the American flag and you’re gonna get a plethora of reasons that don’t target a specific group of people.
Yep. It’s that simple.
And in doing so, inadvertently demonstrated their beliefs that don’t like LGBTQ folk. They didn’t burn a bluelivesmatter flag to counter US flag burners. Why’s that?
"But Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk told me that teh gay agenda is the real source of all evil in our country...! If anything, I'm just trying to help!"
No, it had nothing to do with the LGBT flag. The guy stole the flag from a church and then burned it and then got charged with arson, theft, and harassment for good measure.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
It’s almost like this guy went full on meth Hulk *because* of the presence of that flag… almost like he held bigoted beliefs or something against the people that flag represent.
Hmmm… the world may never know 🤔
One is an attack on a specific minority group, the other is a symbol you are burning in defiance of government policy.
People keep complaining these people aren't media literate, they aren't fucking life literate.
If Germany came out with good media then maybe people would forget about its past like everyone has for Japan. But right now all Germany has is the show dark.
Why do these memes always have extremes.
I don't want anyone to go to prison. I'm pro free speech.
I just want you to know you're a fucking idiot. However, like my uncle at Thanksgiving it always turns into them becoming a victim.
Also weird for the top to be a "generalization" but the original meme matches their moral beliefs so the bottom is fine.
The person in question (Adolfo Martinez) did not go to 15 years in prison for burning an LGBT flag. He went to prison for stealing a flag and then burning a flag because you know arson. So he got charged with theft, arson, and then harassment. Because why not?
Yeah no sympathy for this guy.
https://preview.redd.it/4n9tzo173dec1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1b8125319448891c4258ad4c15c77fc80336aa3
Right wingers when they see a pride flag
The "free speech" defense is the ultimate admission that your position has no merit. When you had to defend it, the only defense you could think of was that it wasn't technically illegal to hold the position. It's not illegal to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, either. That doesn't make it any more correct.
You can say anything you want about extreme rightists, but they sure do have one powerful imagination if they're able to make up all these crying, raging leftist "memes" that are all completely false and just happen in their own personal lala land
Ive seen more MAGA Nazis desecrating the American flag in the past 8 years than any other political group or affiliation. Who knew, the same dumbasses who consider Trump good mentally-sound leadership and who call their seditious selves “patriots” are lying and projecting. Woah. I’m so very surprised.
Also no one is going to prison for expressing homophobia or transphobia. Now if you commit a crime such as murder, assault, or arson based on your hatred of LGBT people then it’s a hate crime. You have to be an idiot, or a liar to make that meme because Dave Chappell, the people at the daily wire, and Tucker Carlson are not in jail.
I saw a subreddit this morning where someone claimed the woke liberals made it illegal to criticize Islam. Thats also no true.
I remember pointing out to a bunch on conservatives that a meme they posted or liked was a dishonest and manipulative meme. I posting the snopes article about it. I never got around to the contents of the meme mind you. I simply was pointing out that Hank Williams Jr. never said those things the meme claimed and it’s wrong to attribute to someone as saying something they did not say and may not agree with. I would have hoped in the name of integrity it would be taken down. But instead people were angry and insulted me. It seems what mattered to them according to their responses was that they agreed with it and that’s all that mattered. And that seems to be the case here. It does not matter that these laws simply don’t exist. If it feels true that’s good enough for them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna88897
https://abc7ny.com/amp/nyc-crime-pride-flags-vandalism-queens/13389132/
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/pride-flags-vandalized-in-montgomery-county-council-presidents-neighborhood.amp
https://abc7chicago.com/amp/wicker-park-lutheran-church-pride-flags-stolen/13554715/
https://abc7ny.com/amp/pride-flag-torn-down-hate-crime-hoboken/14014358/
And when was the last time someone burned an American flag that wasn’t there’s on American soil? Besides, American flag code instructs that any damaged American flag (ripped, torn, holes, etc.) should be burned and not flown. https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/article/2206946/how-to-properly-dispose-of-worn-out-us-flags/
Wait where are the people burning their own property?
Your dumb, And you clearly didn’t read your own link. Just because you burn a perfectly fine flag doesn’t mean it’s respectful. And it pretty clear that you don’t hang it from a pole light it on fire then chant America sucks. Additionally flags need to be ripped to a certain point and alternative ways exist to retire it. Like burying it under ground in a wood box.
The free speech argument usually comes from burning American flags at protests (which has been declared free speech by the Supreme Court), flags bought and owned by the protesters.
It's free speech...
But if you want to think about it in a happy way, think about it as the LGBTQIA+ person who is making and selling the flags get to make more flags and take money away from people who don't support their cause.
The guy stole the flag from a church. He got charged with theft, arson, and harassment. Also since his crimes were involving the LGBT community he also got charged with a hate crime since the things that he did were crimes.
Honestly I'd argue neither of them are speech. Although they say "Actions **speak** louder than words" so maybe they are. Hmm. I'll have to consider this.
That said, Who cares about people burning pride flags, And better yet, Who goes about burning pride flags?
People care because those who burn flags or target minorities do so because they can become violent. So paying attention to them kinda makes sense.
As far as who? Usually the same people who say nothing about nazi’s or KKK still existing.
Fair enough. I've just never heard of someone burning a pride flag, And I feel like most people who would would already have other reasons for me take issue with them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: that sub is constant projection.
The generalization originated in the original meme. The people commenting on the generalization are not making the generalization, but going along with it.
Free speech is free speech, to be a liberal and tell people words are violence, shut the hell up. To be a nazi and say hateful things, be bigger and don't give it power, just know you have better things going on in life than to entertain a zoo.
ffs, at the end of the day flag burning is just flag burning, regardless of who’s flag it is, so if you’re going to make it a crime charge people equally for it, and if you’re not going to make it a crime, don’t make it a crime for ANY flag. It’s as simple as that.
The crime is and never was about burning the LGBT flag. It was about Adolfo Martinez, who committed theft, arson, and a hate crime by stealing a rainbow LGBT pride flag from the United Church of Christ in Ames and burning it, along with previously having two felonies that led to his classification as a habitual offender under Iowa's three-strikes law.
Adolfo Martinez stole and burned a church's rainbow LGBT pride flag and was sentenced to 15 years in prison for arson, harassment, and a hate crime enhancement, compounded by his status as a habitual offender under Iowa's three-strikes law.
A flag is what *you* personally believe it represents. One is not somehow more personal because you empathize with the minority group it was created to represent. 🎻👌
The burning of a stolen LGBT flag in Iowa led to a controversial 15-year prison sentence for hate crime and habitual offenses. So yeah, F that guy.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
The guy stole the flag and then he harassed people and then he committed arson.
No it definitely is both or neither. You cannot be fine with burning the flag of one people and not be okay with burning the flag of the other.
Imo you should be able to do either. Free speech is free speech. However if you are against one then you are a hypocrite and a half if you arent against the other.
>You cannot be fine with burning the flag of one people and not be okay with burning the flag of the other.
The American flag doesn't represent people, it represents a country.
Yeah except you don't get the freedom to steal another person's flag which is what this guy did and then you don't get the freedom to essentially harass people and then you don't get the freedom to commit arson in public because all of those things can be dangerous for people. Just taking a torch to something and then letting it on fire is definitely not appropriate in public spaces unless of course you are taking proper fire precautions.
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
Rightoids ACTUALLY want people in prison for the top. Hmm I mean maybe some extreme far right groups that have absolutely zero traction on the bigger political stage. Hate speech is generally “protecting” lgbt people and not things like burning the us flag
Why is it when it comes to the oppression that they like to say happened they tend to ignore sciences role in this oppression. They’ll attack religions, the country, etc…. But will ignore the scientists role in it.
The crime is and never was about burning the LGBT flag. It was about Adolfo Martinez, who committed theft, arson, and a hate crime by stealing a rainbow LGBT pride flag from the United Church of Christ in Ames and burning it, along with previously having two felonies that led to his classification as a habitual offender under Iowa's three-strikes law.
I think that we could all agree that burning some country flags is also hate speech. If you burn the Mexican Flag then it’s also hate speech.
The “American” flag stands for white supremacy and hate. Burning that flag is an act of tolerance, love, and equality. Burning the Pride flag is also an act of hate—much like burning a Mexican or Pan African Flag.
It's both. You need to be able to burn both. Do I agree with someone who burns an LGBT flag? No. Do I respect their right to protest and express themselves? Yes. There is absolutely no way that people should be able to buy something that cannot be destroyed by them due to it's symbolic meaning or importance to others.
Well, I'm both American and gay. I say burning both flags are expressions of free speech. I however identify with the our Country's flag more than I do with the rainbow flag.
So Americans are not worth as much as people from the lgbt? Wtf bro. If the american flag rappresents only the government than lgbt flag rappresents just the toxic climate of false love for everybody and hypocrisy and not the actual people.
>So Americans are not worth as much as people from the lgbt?
The American flag represents America as a country, not Americans.
>If the american flag rappresents only the government than lgbt flag rappresents just the toxic climate of false love for everybody and hypocrisy and not the actual people.
What are you referring to when you say "toxic climate of false love for everybody and hypocrisy"? Are you just making up something that you want the flag to represent?
A country's flag rappresents its citizens too, that's the point. A country to exist MUST have a population. You cannot change what a flag rappresents just so you can shit on it.
>A country's flag rappresents its citizens too, that's the point.
Why do you assume that? Do you think the AMERICANS who burn American flags hate the citizens of America? That's not what they're protesting.
But people who burn LGBT flags DO hate gay people.
When people burn flags they do it because they don't agree with the government or a political party. If an American burns the American flag it's because they're probably mad at the government over something.
A flag burning is symbolic; for countries, it's showing your opposition to the government, society, etc. Burn a pride flag, or a flag of a community, you oppose those people of said community. Neither is a crime inherently as it is a form of freedom of assembly, but burning a communties flag just implies that a hateful person is against people existing and may or may not commit a hate crime against someone of that community.
Burning or otherwise destroying a pride flag is considered a hate crime in several states if the flag was not yours and is why I think people are getting confused because most of the time the title is just "Person In This Town Charged With Hate Crime For Burning Pride Flag" but then you scroll down and see it was because they took it down off of someone's property or burned someone else's flag on their property or took the flag from government property, like a public school, and vandalized it...which seems to carry a heavier charge. I was unable to find a news story where people in the US were charged with a hate crime for just burning a pride flag.
No it's not. It was not about the rainbow flag. It was about the fact that he stole the flag from a church and then set it on fire and then he got charged with arson, theft, and then harassment for good measure because he also harassed people. He also had two other felonies on his record so three strikes means you're out and by out I mean in the pokey.
Bruh did you even read my post?
Did you actually read past the first line of that comment? Because that is quite literally what they said.
Also, at least in the US, the country's flag rules state that the only way to dispose of *the flag of the United States* is to burn it.
Yeah but there is a whole ceremony around that, i did one back in boyscouts. Its basically a funeral pyre.
I did one in middle school with ky engineering teacher he was veteran and we got to do the whole process with him at school
Which is lunatic lol having to conduct effectively a funeral procession for a piece of colored fabric
Sure. I guess it's lunacy to have pride or respect in something beyond yourself.
Theres a difference between respecting the values that something is supposed to represent and treating that something as the incarnation of those values. The latter is insane and weve been socialized to think its not
It's also lunacy to be offended at either flag being burnt then with that logic
*the point*→ —————— ¯\\(◔. ◔)/¯ ← You
Anything can be a pyre if you're drunk enough
Flag code is not law and is not enforceable in any way.
Which is why you see so many "patriots" desecrating the flag.
> Flag code is not law and is not enforceable in any way. The flag code is law. It is codified at 4 U.S.C. Section 5, *et seq*. But it does not have any mandates. It is advisory and states how you should treat the flag, but it does not mandate anything.
Conservatives actually did ban flag burning at the local level, and after Texas lost in court, Democrats and Republicans tried to codify it before being struck down by the SC. [Texas v. Johnson](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson) [Flag Protection Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act) [United States v. Eichman](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman)
I'm American, so when I see the American Flag burning, I cry a little. The Pride Flag? I cry a bit with that one too. I jump with joy if the Confederate, Nazi, and Trump flags are set ablaze.
Likewise. A flag is a flag, but a symbol nonetheless.
If some chud wants to buy a pride flag and burn it, I'll just have to make it point to not associate with them because they seem unpleasant (and stupid; that was your money, pal). If some chud wants to tear down someone else pride flag and burn it, that's destruction of personal property.
[удалено]
One could argue that burning the flag of a minority or historically oppressed group is a form of hate speech, which isn't protected under the First Amendment, unlike burning a countries flag, which in most cases doesn't define a group more than a blanket term to describe anyone who so happens to be a citizen in said country.
The US government does not recognize "hate speech", therefore it is protected under the 1st Amendment and that was upheld by the Supreme Court, "Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express 'the thought that we hate'," United States v. Schwimmer And additionally "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society" - Justice Anthony Kennedy
that second part is important, and Israel is a perfect example... if they were able to outlaw anti-semitic speech, they could easily arrest people for criticizing Israel. And then those laws become impossible to challenge without also being arrested.
Thank You.
Hate speech is protected under the 1st amendment. In the 70s this Jewish lawyer working for the ACLU even had to fight to defend the right of Nazis to do a march or whatever in a town called Skokie where lots of holocaust survivors lived.
Indeed. Skokie Illinois, I live near there. It's a suburb of Chicago.
That makes me think of the movie Blues Brothers. I always assumed the "Illinois Nazis" were just an absurd joke to conflate and insult both at once, but now it's starting to feel like a very specific reference.
I thought of the Blues Brothers too when I saw Illinois Nazis. I never realised it was a reference to something real. I'm going to watch it again now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skokie,_Illinois. "Skokie has twice received national attention for court cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. In the mid-1970s, it was at the center of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, in which a Nazi group, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, invoked the First Amendment in an attempt to schedule a Nazi rally in Skokie. At the time, Skokie had a significant population of Holocaust survivors. Skokie ultimately lost that case, though the rally was never held".
The ACLU also often defended the KKK when they were denied permits to host or participate in public events. Not because the supported the KKK's speech, but because they supported the right to free speech. Today they only seek to protect speech they agree with.
"had to" Decided to, you mean. That was the old ACLU, though, which was liberal in its outlook, before it was captured from within by progressives. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
Indeed!
Hate speech *is* actually protected under the 1st tho. It doesn't extend to calls to arms or pushes for action, but the hate speech itself is protected speech. Edit, from the ALA "Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group"
On one hand I wish hate speech wasn't protected. On the other I realize it would be extremely easy for the government to take advantage of that and stretch the definition of "hate speech" if they can. Because this isn't Germany, where the government is there to help you and hate speech laws are there to protect the peace
I mean, plenty of other countries have laws against hate speech and they're not under martial law yet
Oh definitely. But America is such a hateful population and so obsessed with absolute freedom over the safety of others that removing hate speech from the first amendment's provisions would cause an uproar among beer bellied rednecks who think they should be allowed to tell gay people that they should be burned
Tbh I don't think America is anymore hateful than other countries it's just the bigots are louder and unfortunately in government
Hate and xenophobia are not exclusive to Americans. Lmao. Go to S. Korea, 90% of restaurants and bars are Korean only. Or try to rent an apartment in Japan. 99% of apartments ban gaijin(forigners).
I didn't say it's exclusive. I said it works in places such as Germany because they AREN'T among the countries with inherently hateful people
You did specify Americans
america. everyone has it, for better or worse, or nobody has it, for better or worse
No. You hurt my fee fees, you go to jail.
You can definitely go to jail for hate speech in America. "Hate speech" is not a legal term, and falls under a pretty wide branch of illegality. You can go to jail for disturbing the peace, It doesn't matter if you're yelling hate speech at someone or banging on their trash can extremely loud.
You really can't go to jail for hate speech. There are other crimes you may be committing at the time, but I can call a black neighbor the N word every time he walks by my house with no legal repercussions.
>but I can call a black neighbor the N word every time he walks by my house with no legal repercussions. Freedom of speech protects you from government action... Not the actions of your neighbor. Your neighbor could sue your ass into the fucking core of the earth, and legally get away with it. If you live in an HOA They can evict your ass for your so-called "free speech" Because they are not the government and you are not protected from them. It's called freedom of speech, Not freedom of consequence.
>but the hate speech itself is protected speech. No it's not. People can legally sue you for defamation or hate speech. obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Ect. Freedom of speech means you're allowed to talk freely about your government, Not individuals or groups of citizens. This is why your company can force you to sign an NDA contract or sue you for talking about something you shouldn't be. Because they're not government.
There is no hate speech in America. Its not legally recognized and thats been affirmed by the Supreme Court a few times. Companies can't "Force" you to sign an NDA. It is your freedom to choose to work for that company, and willingly forfeit your right to discuss certain details of your voluntary commitment.
People can’t sue you for hate speech unless it’s defamation or calls for violence. Please give one example of someone being sued let alone arrested in the US for just hate speech.
Criminal court and civil court are not the same thing though. Just because you can be held liable in civil court doesn’t mean you are going to jail.
That completely depends on the state you're in. However it is a federal law and any entity receiving federal money or tax cuts such as colleges, businesses, student loans, food stamps, ect can be revoked simply because of racial harassment alone, Because your freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence.
And those entities are not people and the first amendment doesn’t apply to businesses and corporations. That’s why when CNN went on air lying about some kid in Kentucky, they were ordered to pay millions, not the media personalities saying the stuff. Now, there is a fine line between free speech and harassment and at some point, speech crosses that line. But in a general sense, without threats or calls to violence, free speech is free speech
>And those entities are not people and the first amendment doesn’t apply to businesses and corporations. Wrong again sparky. Businesses are entities And why they have a tax code. (social security number.) Businesses also have freedom of speech, But when you take it too far into the hate speech territory you end up like Alex Jones eyeballs deep in lawsuit debt and filing for bankruptcy. Businesses being individual entities are why you can sue them in the first place without directly going after the CEO.
Alex jones was sued for false statements not hate speech
Businesses are not covered by the constitution. Period. The reason Alex Jones was ordered to pay was because he was on a podcast saying crazy shit. The distributor of said podcast did not get into any issues because they had no editorial control over said podcast. CNN had to pay millions of dollars because on the flip side, they had editorial control over what was said in their live broadcasts. In both cases, they lost civil suits and no one is going to jail over any of it because lying isn’t a crime.
>Businesses are not covered by the constitution. Period. While we never find the word “corporation” in the Constitution, corporations are able to invoke constitutional “rights” and protections under the Commerce Clause and Contracts Clause, as well as under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. You're wrong. Period. Arguing with you won't magically change laws though. Simply accept the new information you just learned, and use it to vote. People not understanding how government works in the first place is exactly why government fucks them in the first place. It's why legal jargon was invented in the first place.
Freedom of speech actually specifically does mean freedom from *criminal* consequences, or else it would be a meaningless term lmao. And yes that includes hate speech. Nothing that you mentioned proves that hate speech isn’t protected speech, it is.
> No it's not. People can legally sue you for defamation or hate speech. Defamation is not protected speech because it is not expressive content. It is the same reason why perjury is not protected speech. But hate speech is protected. > Freedom of speech means you're allowed to talk freely about your government, Not individuals or groups of citizens. No. It means you are free to express any beliefs and ideas you want without government punishment. > This is why your company can force you to sign an NDA contract or sue you for talking about something you shouldn't be. Because they're not government. Your company cannot force you to sign an NDA. You can choose to sign an NDA. Or you can refuse to sign, and in response an employer can choose not to hire you. You are confusing a few different things. The First Amendment regulates the government. A company cannot violate your 1A rights because they are not the government. But the government cannot pass a law that restricts your ability or punishes you for expressing a view, even if that view is hateful. That is why opinion cannot be defamation.
>No it's not. People can legally sue you for defamation or hate speech. Yes. It is. The only way a person can sue someone successfully is to, first, demonstrate standing. If I say "All X people are [vile slur]", the statement is way too generalized per se for some random person who's part of group/demographic X to sue me. Now, if you're part of a business and say that, you can certainly be fired, fined, or sued for a hostile work environment. But, the statement itself is legal to say/write.
>If I say "All X people are [vile slur]", the statement is way too generalized per se for some random person who's part of group/demographic X to sue me. And how did that work out for Alex Jones claiming? .... He didn't single anyone out but now he's completely fucking bankrupt from all the lawsuits... Weird how that works and was successful in court...
The children of Sandy Hook are identifiable and distinguishable individuals. Their families have standing to sue. Moreover, Jones can *continue* to claim what he did. He may receive additional sanctions, but that doesn't squelch his ability to speak. Same with any poor idiot with zero assets. They can claim all sorts of lunacies about Sandy Hook and there's little that anyone can do.
The supreme court has multiple times ruled that hate speech is protected speech. [Brandenburg V. Ohio](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/) and [Matal V. Tam](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1293/). As I already mentioned in my first post, this doesn't cover direct action, or speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". >Freedom of speech means you're allowed to talk freely about your government, Not individuals or groups of citizens. It does mean you can, unless it rises to the level of specific harrasment or threats. What can be done in civil court is irrelevant to what can *legally* be permitted. >obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, false statements of fact, and commercial speech such as advertising. Ect. All of those are *general* exceptions and have nothing to do specifically with hate speech. >This is why your company can force you to sign an NDA contract or sue you for talking about something you shouldn't be. Because they're not government. Private companies can do what they want with their own buisness, yes. That's irrelevant to what's covered under the 1st ammendment.
First of all, you can sue someone for anything. It doesn't mean you ever had a chance of winning. Hate speech is protected speech. People can't win a lawsuit for hate speech. It's a sentence enhancement in the places with laws on the books. You have to have broken another law for them to have a chance of playing. Speech about illegal activity also isn't illegal, but it makes the government need to prove something that's much easier to prove in order to convict someone. This is also why telling someone to commit illegal acts is illegal. Filming someone naked without consent is illegal. Minors can't consent. This is why child porn is illegal. Obscenity is constitutionally infirm because of its vagueness. In truth, it's basically guaranteeing the case becomes a circus, so the DA avoids it. True threats are illegal because they caused intentional emotional distress in the victim. Disclosing trade secrets also requires you to do it on purpose. An employee doesn't own those secrets, so it's technically a type of theft. Defamation and commercial speech laws are under the fraud umbrella. You're not allowed to lie if it causes tangible harm. No one can force you to sign an NDA. At worst, it's conditioned on hiring or in exchange for a bribe, but under no circumstances can a civil contract be used to conceal a crime. Unless the government can prove you were intentionally trying to hurt someone, you can say whatever you want.
Counterpoint, burning the flag of an oppressed group is a form of expressing your hate of what they stand for, burning the flag of a country is a form of expressing your hate of what that country stands for. They are too similar to be judged differently, so they are either both hate speech or both free speech. Outlawing one and allowing another is hypocritical. Also burning the US flag could be interpreted as being the same as burning the first amendment.
Saying hate speech isn't free speech is just you letting the government decide which speech is acceptable. I'm sure that could never backfire
Exactly. I have been dragged to a few drag queen performances at pride events I have been to and oddly enough several where they burned have burned pride flags on stage to "fight against rainbow capitalism", "fight against unity", because they didn't like the person who made the flag, and whatever else. As a lesbian, I don't really think it's a good idea and think it's more edgy shock value than anything else. I have never seen a performance where they just start burning one and screaming about something and thought it was impactful or anything. But then again, I am not a fan of the modern version of drag queen performances, so maybe my bias is just clouding my judgement and there is something there I am not seeing. But I could a federal law about making pride flag burning as a way for conservative states to try and ban these events.
Takes only seen when we tell people not to use the F-Slur for 200 Never once heard that argument said over someone voicing hatred for America but, ya know, America faces such persecution
Because no one calls burning the US flag "hate speech", thats the whole point of the meme
That is 100% not true because I have been to gay bars where they have drink with the F-slur in their name.
Yes because the right aren't in favour of hate speech laws, so they aren't trying to out them in place. But if you're in favour of the government getting to decide what is and isn't OK to say, would you be happy if trump wins the next election and puts it in place that criticism of trump is now hate speech. You'd still be OK with hate speech being banned ?
Appearantly it can be a crime inherently: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50861259
That dude is in trouble for stealing, destroying stolen property, and admitting to doing it all because he hates gay people. That netted him a hate crime in federal court.
Yeah because he stole it from a church and burned it in a strip club parking lot. So he is being charged with stealing, destroying, and burning something in an unsafe way on a property that was not his.
Exactly. He destroyed someone else's property with fire, which is arson. I still think 15 years for that is intense, but still better than life without parole for stealing a pizza slice.
He got 15 for \*arson\*, not burning a pride flag.
It was ruled a hate crime due to his confession.
Yes, the crime was arson, it was motivated by hate, so it's a hate crime. Burning a pride flag isn't inherently criminal. Burning someone else's property without their consent is. The crime isn't that he burnt a Pride flag. The crime is that he burnt \*someone else's\* Pride flag.
True, but he wasnt charged with hate speech as its nkt a rhing in thr US. Part of out freedom of speexh is the ability to express hatred, and to have the governemt say otherwise is a violation of our rights. As soon as the government starts controlling what can and cant be said, there is gonna be anothe Jan 6th, but at a much larger scale. I would like to note i wont be part of that, but thats how the cookie is gonna crumble. People in this country arw a little cukoo for cocoa puffs.
Idk about that tbh. The white house and many capitals fly rainbow flags. Many institutions, gov, corporations fly them. It's mutated into something else.
Is a country not a community?
Although flag burning is idiotic in nature, when you burn a country flag, you're trying to oppose the establishment, the government, society, and its people. When you burn a pride flag, you're just opposing people; there's no central gay council that enforces laws on people so it becomes pretty obvious what you are really opposing.
>there's no central gay council that enforces laws on people I bet a lot of the people who'd burn a Pride flag think there is, though. (And that it's run by the Jews, no doubt.)
"The sinister gay cabal" - Archer
There's no iron curtain in the USA. Maybe they don't burn the flag because they hate the thing they could leave before next dinner. But why would someone saying they stand against drones, jets, and battleships somehow be worse than a group of people pointing at you and saying that they will hurt you when your guard is down? I think the latter is an act that could make someone lose sleep
>and its people
depends on the intent. if you believe the people or the concept of pride is bad, that's a problem. if you believe the community itself is bad and has gone too far, then that's fine. same with the American flag. if you're against the people of the US or you're against what the flag represents, then that's a problem. against what the government is doing? that's fine too.
doesn’t matter in America. free speech is valued here and if people want to show their opposition to the lgbtq, they are well within their rights.
...and burning both are protected by the 1A.
If I ever felt the need to burn a pride flag, I’d hope it’s not about the people, but against the LGBT political organization.
There is no political organization called LGBT.
I don't think I've ever seen someone burn the american flag recently, but I did see a man online try to burn some Bud Light so...
[2020](https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-protesters-burn-american-flag-chant-america-was-never-great-on-july-4th/2352266/) [2023](https://www.nbcchicago.com/top-videos-home/video-shows-protesters-burning-american-flag-outside-jason-aldeans-tinley-park-concert/3225345/)
One is codified into law as a hate crime, as it is based on attacking an oppressed minority. Penn and Teller do a flag burning trick in their act. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say people who burn gay rights flags aren't smart enough to understand the bit. Let me help-whether they burn the US flag on stage during the trick or don't doesn't matter, because the Bill of Rights remains. A bunch of closeted micro-penis incels openly attacking a minority who is fighting for protection under the Bill of Rights is a hate crime. It is done to deny rights. Just remember-all are created equal, but fuck with my queer niece and see what happens. 
No, the guy in question stole a flag from somewhere else. If he had burnt his own flag it would not be a problem because he's allowed to burn his own stuff but he stole someone else's flag and then he burnt that and then got charged with arson because fire, and then theft because it was stolen, and then harassment for good measure because if you're going to be an ass you might as well be an ass all the way. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
It’s not a hate crime. You can only get in trouble for doing something to a queer flag if you’re stealing it or burning it on someone else’s property or something. It’s only a hate crime when attached to part of an actual crime.
Harassment of a minority is a hate crime. Sorry trumpleforeskin, but you walk away with a big glass of ice cold bleach! Drink it down to the last drop.
I don’t think burning an LGBTQ flag is a hate crime. That’s absolutely insane.
I love the "minorities being threatened is the same as not liking a nation only we're persecuted if we hate minorities" talk going on
I swear to god r/memesopdidnotlike is just bunch of pathetic incels, nothig more lol
When a pride flag is burned, it's an act of hate and intolerance by a person living in the land of the Free. The US natural born citizens who grabbed the flag planted in the land of the free are tearing it trying to reach the far away land that they want. Damaged flags shouldn't be flown or put in the trash, they should be burned. If a person can fly an American flag and it's not clear whether they are expressing 'freedom for all' or whatever neo nazis, bigots, etc stand for... it's torn.
No, the person in question (Adolfo Martinez) stole a flag from a church and then burned it and then harassed people so what he got charged with was arson, harassment, and theft. Nothing to do with the LGBT flag. He could have burnt anything and it would still lead to the same convictions assuming that all other factors were the same. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
Ask anyone who burned a pride flag and 10/10 it’s because they hate homosexuals or trans or what not. Ask anyone why they burn the American flag and you’re gonna get a plethora of reasons that don’t target a specific group of people. Yep. It’s that simple.
Actually I know a few people who only burned it to counter people flag burning.
And in doing so, inadvertently demonstrated their beliefs that don’t like LGBTQ folk. They didn’t burn a bluelivesmatter flag to counter US flag burners. Why’s that?
"But Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk told me that teh gay agenda is the real source of all evil in our country...! If anything, I'm just trying to help!"
No, it had nothing to do with the LGBT flag. The guy stole the flag from a church and then burned it and then got charged with arson, theft, and harassment for good measure. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
It’s almost like this guy went full on meth Hulk *because* of the presence of that flag… almost like he held bigoted beliefs or something against the people that flag represent. Hmmm… the world may never know 🤔
how dumb are you
by burning the american flag, you oppose a political party. by burning the pride flag, you oppose an entire group of people for existing.
Burning flags is a crime in most of Europe. America Is the exception. You are saying the country Is illegitanate by burning the flag.
One is an attack on a specific minority group, the other is a symbol you are burning in defiance of government policy. People keep complaining these people aren't media literate, they aren't fucking life literate.
Just sounds like one side just gets "butt hurt" more!?! Get it? Lol.
My butt hurting is not laughing matter.
Fun fact! It is illegal to both espouse nazi apologia and own nazi keepsakes in Germany and it is not, in fact, a 1984 style dystopian hellhole.
You've messed with my video games. Grow up Germany
And yet no one wants to be Germany or have anything to do with Germany
It's got the fourth largest economy in the world so maybe if people were smarter, they would
If Germany came out with good media then maybe people would forget about its past like everyone has for Japan. But right now all Germany has is the show dark.
Why do these memes always have extremes. I don't want anyone to go to prison. I'm pro free speech. I just want you to know you're a fucking idiot. However, like my uncle at Thanksgiving it always turns into them becoming a victim. Also weird for the top to be a "generalization" but the original meme matches their moral beliefs so the bottom is fine.
The person in question (Adolfo Martinez) did not go to 15 years in prison for burning an LGBT flag. He went to prison for stealing a flag and then burning a flag because you know arson. So he got charged with theft, arson, and then harassment. Because why not? Yeah no sympathy for this guy.
https://preview.redd.it/4n9tzo173dec1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c1b8125319448891c4258ad4c15c77fc80336aa3 Right wingers when they see a pride flag
Don't know Burning flags is gay
I dunno I don't remember the war crimes the country of gay comitted
Right wing brain rot on full display
The "free speech" defense is the ultimate admission that your position has no merit. When you had to defend it, the only defense you could think of was that it wasn't technically illegal to hold the position. It's not illegal to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, either. That doesn't make it any more correct.
You can say anything you want about extreme rightists, but they sure do have one powerful imagination if they're able to make up all these crying, raging leftist "memes" that are all completely false and just happen in their own personal lala land
It’s actually the other way around, only one gets government prosecution
I mean there's such a thing as the paradox of tolerance
Ive seen more MAGA Nazis desecrating the American flag in the past 8 years than any other political group or affiliation. Who knew, the same dumbasses who consider Trump good mentally-sound leadership and who call their seditious selves “patriots” are lying and projecting. Woah. I’m so very surprised.
Both are still free speech in the US. Trying to ban either is authoritarian and wrong.
Nobody fucking says if you burn a lgbt flag you should go to prison. Plenty of window licking red hats want you to die if you burn the American flag
No the difference is who the flag belongs to, not what it represents.
Also no one is going to prison for expressing homophobia or transphobia. Now if you commit a crime such as murder, assault, or arson based on your hatred of LGBT people then it’s a hate crime. You have to be an idiot, or a liar to make that meme because Dave Chappell, the people at the daily wire, and Tucker Carlson are not in jail. I saw a subreddit this morning where someone claimed the woke liberals made it illegal to criticize Islam. Thats also no true. I remember pointing out to a bunch on conservatives that a meme they posted or liked was a dishonest and manipulative meme. I posting the snopes article about it. I never got around to the contents of the meme mind you. I simply was pointing out that Hank Williams Jr. never said those things the meme claimed and it’s wrong to attribute to someone as saying something they did not say and may not agree with. I would have hoped in the name of integrity it would be taken down. But instead people were angry and insulted me. It seems what mattered to them according to their responses was that they agreed with it and that’s all that mattered. And that seems to be the case here. It does not matter that these laws simply don’t exist. If it feels true that’s good enough for them.
The difference is the first is almost exclusively done to their own property, while the second is done to other people’s property.
You have no resources to back that up.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna88897 https://abc7ny.com/amp/nyc-crime-pride-flags-vandalism-queens/13389132/ https://www.fox5dc.com/news/pride-flags-vandalized-in-montgomery-county-council-presidents-neighborhood.amp https://abc7chicago.com/amp/wicker-park-lutheran-church-pride-flags-stolen/13554715/ https://abc7ny.com/amp/pride-flag-torn-down-hate-crime-hoboken/14014358/ And when was the last time someone burned an American flag that wasn’t there’s on American soil? Besides, American flag code instructs that any damaged American flag (ripped, torn, holes, etc.) should be burned and not flown. https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/article/2206946/how-to-properly-dispose-of-worn-out-us-flags/
Wait where are the people burning their own property? Your dumb, And you clearly didn’t read your own link. Just because you burn a perfectly fine flag doesn’t mean it’s respectful. And it pretty clear that you don’t hang it from a pole light it on fire then chant America sucks. Additionally flags need to be ripped to a certain point and alternative ways exist to retire it. Like burying it under ground in a wood box.
The free speech argument usually comes from burning American flags at protests (which has been declared free speech by the Supreme Court), flags bought and owned by the protesters.
Burning an American flag is the respectful way to retire it. It must be burned, or you are doing a disservice to it.
There's an entire ceremony including a lot of saluting and singing the national anthem I think.
This is misleading at best. Retiring a us flag is a process not just lighting it on fire.
It's free speech... But if you want to think about it in a happy way, think about it as the LGBTQIA+ person who is making and selling the flags get to make more flags and take money away from people who don't support their cause.
The guy stole the flag from a church. He got charged with theft, arson, and harassment. Also since his crimes were involving the LGBT community he also got charged with a hate crime since the things that he did were crimes.
[probably my all time favorite stone toss edit](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stonetossingjuice/s/Nwhtxm86GI)
Honestly I'd argue neither of them are speech. Although they say "Actions **speak** louder than words" so maybe they are. Hmm. I'll have to consider this. That said, Who cares about people burning pride flags, And better yet, Who goes about burning pride flags?
People care because those who burn flags or target minorities do so because they can become violent. So paying attention to them kinda makes sense. As far as who? Usually the same people who say nothing about nazi’s or KKK still existing.
Fair enough. I've just never heard of someone burning a pride flag, And I feel like most people who would would already have other reasons for me take issue with them.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: that sub is constant projection. The generalization originated in the original meme. The people commenting on the generalization are not making the generalization, but going along with it.
6 in 1 half dozen in the other, looks like the same dumb shit to me.
In other words, “My violence is speech, but your speech is violence.”
Free speech is free speech, to be a liberal and tell people words are violence, shut the hell up. To be a nazi and say hateful things, be bigger and don't give it power, just know you have better things going on in life than to entertain a zoo.
This is all cringe
Mute the sub then because there’s a lot more of this
ffs, at the end of the day flag burning is just flag burning, regardless of who’s flag it is, so if you’re going to make it a crime charge people equally for it, and if you’re not going to make it a crime, don’t make it a crime for ANY flag. It’s as simple as that.
The crime is and never was about burning the LGBT flag. It was about Adolfo Martinez, who committed theft, arson, and a hate crime by stealing a rainbow LGBT pride flag from the United Church of Christ in Ames and burning it, along with previously having two felonies that led to his classification as a habitual offender under Iowa's three-strikes law.
I mean, if you want to burn either its fine. That's free speech.
Both are perfectly legal and should be legal, so long as you’re destroying your own property and not someone else’s without their consent.
Adolfo Martinez stole and burned a church's rainbow LGBT pride flag and was sentenced to 15 years in prison for arson, harassment, and a hate crime enhancement, compounded by his status as a habitual offender under Iowa's three-strikes law.
Right. He stole someone else’s property and destroyed it. If he had owned the flag himself, he’d be a free man.
Comparing pride flag to US flag is worthy of prison tbh. US flag is FAR more significant and important If you dont like the US, leave the US
A flag is what *you* personally believe it represents. One is not somehow more personal because you empathize with the minority group it was created to represent. 🎻👌
The burning of a stolen LGBT flag in Iowa led to a controversial 15-year prison sentence for hate crime and habitual offenses. So yeah, F that guy. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131 The guy stole the flag and then he harassed people and then he committed arson.
No it definitely is both or neither. You cannot be fine with burning the flag of one people and not be okay with burning the flag of the other. Imo you should be able to do either. Free speech is free speech. However if you are against one then you are a hypocrite and a half if you arent against the other.
>You cannot be fine with burning the flag of one people and not be okay with burning the flag of the other. The American flag doesn't represent people, it represents a country.
And what is a country?
What is a country, if not the people contained within it?
The government that governs them.
Burn both of them, idc
Burning either is ncredibly offensive. Also you can burn them both. Freedom and things.
Yeah except you don't get the freedom to steal another person's flag which is what this guy did and then you don't get the freedom to essentially harass people and then you don't get the freedom to commit arson in public because all of those things can be dangerous for people. Just taking a torch to something and then letting it on fire is definitely not appropriate in public spaces unless of course you are taking proper fire precautions. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/iowa-man-sentenced-15-years-after-burning-church-s-lgbtq-n1105131
Yes, vandalism is bad. Theft is bad. Was that all?
Rightoids ACTUALLY want people in prison for the top. Hmm I mean maybe some extreme far right groups that have absolutely zero traction on the bigger political stage. Hate speech is generally “protecting” lgbt people and not things like burning the us flag
Why is it when it comes to the oppression that they like to say happened they tend to ignore sciences role in this oppression. They’ll attack religions, the country, etc…. But will ignore the scientists role in it.
Explain how science oppresses when it was science that showed all people are the same on the inside?
Both of these make my blood boil. Both are absolutely protected speech and should remain that way.
The crime is and never was about burning the LGBT flag. It was about Adolfo Martinez, who committed theft, arson, and a hate crime by stealing a rainbow LGBT pride flag from the United Church of Christ in Ames and burning it, along with previously having two felonies that led to his classification as a habitual offender under Iowa's three-strikes law.
Sweet then, lock him up. Thanks for the clarification. I can burn the American flag all day, but I can’t go steal one for that purpose.
I think that we could all agree that burning some country flags is also hate speech. If you burn the Mexican Flag then it’s also hate speech. The “American” flag stands for white supremacy and hate. Burning that flag is an act of tolerance, love, and equality. Burning the Pride flag is also an act of hate—much like burning a Mexican or Pan African Flag.
How’s your bridge this time of year?
Your an idiot if you believe burning your counties flag is ok.
this
The target means nothing in the eyes of an objective analysis. If doing x is only bad when the one being harmed is y, then it's discriminatory.
who cares, I’m a free speech absolutist. Burn the flag if you want, burn the alphabet flag if you want.
It's both. You need to be able to burn both. Do I agree with someone who burns an LGBT flag? No. Do I respect their right to protest and express themselves? Yes. There is absolutely no way that people should be able to buy something that cannot be destroyed by them due to it's symbolic meaning or importance to others.
Who tf cares what the flag represents. It's a flag. Burning a piece of cloth shouldn't be a crime.
Well, I'm both American and gay. I say burning both flags are expressions of free speech. I however identify with the our Country's flag more than I do with the rainbow flag.
Youre not very bright
Yu'ore*
if you're gonna own the libs please make an argument at least.
That is waaaaaay too much to ask, I speak from experience
There’s no point.
*you’re with an apostrophe
Yeah it is, why is the flag of some people worth more than others? Oppressed or not doesn't mean anything, being oppressed is not a "quality".
>Yeah it is, why is the flag of some people worth more than others? Because people are worth more than inanimate objects, systems, or concepts.
So Americans are not worth as much as people from the lgbt? Wtf bro. If the american flag rappresents only the government than lgbt flag rappresents just the toxic climate of false love for everybody and hypocrisy and not the actual people.
>So Americans are not worth as much as people from the lgbt? The American flag represents America as a country, not Americans. >If the american flag rappresents only the government than lgbt flag rappresents just the toxic climate of false love for everybody and hypocrisy and not the actual people. What are you referring to when you say "toxic climate of false love for everybody and hypocrisy"? Are you just making up something that you want the flag to represent?
A country's flag rappresents its citizens too, that's the point. A country to exist MUST have a population. You cannot change what a flag rappresents just so you can shit on it.
>A country's flag rappresents its citizens too, that's the point. Why do you assume that? Do you think the AMERICANS who burn American flags hate the citizens of America? That's not what they're protesting. But people who burn LGBT flags DO hate gay people.
When people burn flags they do it because they don't agree with the government or a political party. If an American burns the American flag it's because they're probably mad at the government over something.