Question for the Left leaning Board members ...

[SC200SC]

A number of Democrat Congress Members are refusing to answer reporters when asked, "Will you condemn recent protester's chants of "Death to America, and the burning of the American flag"?

So, I ask you guys the same question, "Will you condemn recent protester's chants of "Death to America, and the burning of the American flag"?



This should be interesting ....

 

[sctrojan2006]

Is there anyone on this board who has come out in support of chants of "Death to America" or the burning of the American flag? I haven't seen posts by anyone in support of either. I could see one supporting the right of Freedom of Speech, regardless of how sickening one perceives it, but not in direct support of the language or acts.

 

[Pudly76]

Is there anyone on this board who has come out in support of chants of "Death to America" or the burning of the American flag? I haven't seen posts by anyone in support of either. I could see one supporting the right of Freedom of Speech, regardless of how sickening one perceives it, but not in direct support of the language or acts.

A wise man once said “ if you’re not for me, then you’re against me “. The opposite is also true. If you’re not against this type of action then you’re effectively for it.
I can only laugh at laws and people that allow the desecration of our flag and at the same time charge people with hate crimes for doing the same to lgbtq or blm flags.

 

[sctrojan2006]

A wise man once said “ if you’re not for me, then you’re against me “. The opposite is also true. If you’re not against this type of action then you’re effectively for it.

No matter how distasteful you find the language or acts, to infringe upon someone's rights is worse.

I can only laugh at laws and people that allow the desecration of our flag and at the same time charge people with hate crimes for doing the same to lgbtq or blm flags.

How can you laugh at the First Amendment? Do you have an actual case(s) where someone burned an LGBTQ or BLM flag that they owned, resulting in that person getting charged with a hate crime? If so, which case was it?

 

[Pudly76]

No matter how distasteful you find the language or acts, to infringe upon someone's rights is worse.

Never said I’d outlaw it. Said that if you don’t protest these actions, you approve of them.

How can you laugh at the First Amendment?

where did I say that?

 

[BOULDER TO BIRMINGHAM]

Joe Scarborough recently said that the MAGA movement was headed by people that hate America. But no mention of Rashida Talib, who refused to condemn all of her constituents that shouted " Death to America". But I would never expect intellectually honesty from that Turd.

 

[SC200SC]

No matter how distasteful you find the language or acts, to infringe upon someone's rights is worse.

Do you believe this is true when the speech calls for violence? (Hint: If you live in California look up 415 P.C.)

 

[sctrojan2006]

Do you believe this is true when the speech calls for violence? (Hint: If you live in California look up 415 P.C.)

The phrase “Death to America” is very different than “Kill that American”, “Kill that Arab”, or “Kill that Jew”. You can walk around stating “Death to Palestine” all day long, if you want. You can even do it across the street from a mosque. As distasteful as most may find it, you would be well within your rights.

The First Amendment trumps California 415 P.C.

It is what it is. We don’t have to like the language, but we have to honor the Bill of Rights.

If you know of a case where someone was convicted under 415 P.C. For shouting “Death to America”, cite it.

 

[uscvball]

No matter how distasteful you find the language or acts, to infringe upon someone's rights is worse.

I see half the populations' rights being violated almost daily now.

Do you have an actual case(s) where someone burned an LGBTQ or BLM flag that they owned, resulting in that person getting charged with a hate crime? If so, which case was it?

Enrique Tarrio
Adolfo Martinez
Angelina Cando
Patrick Murphy

 

[uscvball]

The phrase “Death to America” is very different than “Kill that American”, “Kill that Arab”, or “Kill that Jew”. You can walk around stating “Death to Palestine” all day long, if you want. You can even do it across the street from a mosque. As distasteful as most may find it, you would be well within your rights.

It is what it is. We don’t have to like the language, but we have to honor the Bill of Rights.

"An anti-Israel activist who went viral over the weekend in Michigan for spurring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" chants has a history of espousing violent rhetoric.

Tarek Bazzi, a Michigan-based activist associated with the Hadi Institute, ignited the chants this past Friday during a speech at an International Al-Quds Day rally in Dearborn, which subsequently drew widespread attention and criticism on social media.

"Imam Khomeini, who declared the International Al-Quds Day, this is why he would say to pour all of your chants and all of your shouts upon the head of America," Bazzi said in the video shared by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

After Bazzi made his comments, the crowd began chanting, "Death to America!" Bazzi later shifted his attention to Israel, telling the audience that when "fools" ask them "if Israel has the right to exist," the chant "Death to Israel" is "the most logical chant shouted across the world today."

"Understand what these slogans mean. 'From the river to the sea' means the absolute annihilation of the Zionist regime," Bazzi says in the video reviewed by Fox News Digital.

"It is absolute evil. It is a cancer in the Middle East and in the world. There is no way to deal peacefully with such an entity," Bazzi said. "There can be no two-state solution when you have a Zionist aggressor that knows no limits. A Zionist aggressor that will steal land and slaughter children and that will take pride in doing such deeds."

"So yes, this is a class struggle in part. This is a national struggle in part," Bazzi continued. "But I tell you, this is something deeper than all of that. This is a divine struggle. This is a struggle of divine justice against satanic injustice.....

"The right to pick up a weapon and fire it at your enemy that is kidnapping and imprisoning your children, that is murdering your family, that is stealing your home, usurping your resources," Bazzi said. "That right, that right for self-defense doesn't come from the UN. We don't wait for America to give it to us. It comes from God."

"There is a price to pay for that victory. Blood must be spilled. Martyrdom must be sought after. Resistance is necessary in any way possible," Bazzi continued. "When the rockets are there, let them fire the rockets. When the rockets run out, then let them throw rocks, and when the rocks are all gone, then let them lift these hands, ball them into fists, and let them punch until victory comes."

"Over here, we have a duty as well. We may not have the rockets and the rocks, and we may not be able to throw those punches, but we do have a duty," Bazzi added. "This is a divine global struggle."

Bazzi later instructed the crowd to tell the FBI to "go to hell" if they come knocking on their doors."



These are not "just words" with guaranteed protection. They are words meant to incite and ignore the laws here. That is not part of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Pudly76]

"An anti-Israel activist who went viral over the weekend in Michigan for spurring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" chants has a history of espousing violent rhetoric.

Tarek Bazzi, a Michigan-based activist associated with the Hadi Institute, ignited the chants this past Friday during a speech at an International Al-Quds Day rally in Dearborn, which subsequently drew widespread attention and criticism on social media.

"Imam Khomeini, who declared the International Al-Quds Day, this is why he would say to pour all of your chants and all of your shouts upon the head of America," Bazzi said in the video shared by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

After Bazzi made his comments, the crowd began chanting, "Death to America!" Bazzi later shifted his attention to Israel, telling the audience that when "fools" ask them "if Israel has the right to exist," the chant "Death to Israel" is "the most logical chant shouted across the world today."

"Understand what these slogans mean. 'From the river to the sea' means the absolute annihilation of the Zionist regime," Bazzi says in the video reviewed by Fox News Digital.

"It is absolute evil. It is a cancer in the Middle East and in the world. There is no way to deal peacefully with such an entity," Bazzi said. "There can be no two-state solution when you have a Zionist aggressor that knows no limits. A Zionist aggressor that will steal land and slaughter children and that will take pride in doing such deeds."

"So yes, this is a class struggle in part. This is a national struggle in part," Bazzi continued. "But I tell you, this is something deeper than all of that. This is a divine struggle. This is a struggle of divine justice against satanic injustice.....

"The right to pick up a weapon and fire it at your enemy that is kidnapping and imprisoning your children, that is murdering your family, that is stealing your home, usurping your resources," Bazzi said. "That right, that right for self-defense doesn't come from the UN. We don't wait for America to give it to us. It comes from God."

"There is a price to pay for that victory. Blood must be spilled. Martyrdom must be sought after. Resistance is necessary in any way possible," Bazzi continued. "When the rockets are there, let them fire the rockets. When the rockets run out, then let them throw rocks, and when the rocks are all gone, then let them lift these hands, ball them into fists, and let them punch until victory comes."

"Over here, we have a duty as well. We may not have the rockets and the rocks, and we may not be able to throw those punches, but we do have a duty," Bazzi added. "This is a divine global struggle."

Bazzi later instructed the crowd to tell the FBI to "go to hell" if they come knocking on their doors."



These are not "just words" with guaranteed protection. They are words meant to incite and ignore the laws here. That is not part of the Bill of Rights.

Let’s yell fire in a crowed auditorium..

 

[SC200SC]

The phrase “Death to America” is very different than “Kill that American”, “Kill that Arab”, or “Kill that Jew”. You can walk around stating “Death to Palestine” all day long, if you want. You can even do it across the street from a mosque. As distasteful as most may find it, you would be well within your rights.

The First Amendment trumps California 415 P.C.

It is what it is. We don’t have to like the language, but we have to honor the Bill of Rights.

If you know of a case where someone was convicted under 415 P.C. For shouting “Death to America”, cite it.

How about "Gas the Jews"?

As for Death to America", no. However, I used to arrest for 415 somewhat frequently for inciting to violence, causing a violent reaction (fight), etc.

 

[Trojan JST]

"An anti-Israel activist who went viral over the weekend in Michigan for spurring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" chants has a history of espousing violent rhetoric.

Tarek Bazzi, a Michigan-based activist associated with the Hadi Institute, ignited the chants this past Friday during a speech at an International Al-Quds Day rally in Dearborn, which subsequently drew widespread attention and criticism on social media.

"Imam Khomeini, who declared the International Al-Quds Day, this is why he would say to pour all of your chants and all of your shouts upon the head of America," Bazzi said in the video shared by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

After Bazzi made his comments, the crowd began chanting, "Death to America!" Bazzi later shifted his attention to Israel, telling the audience that when "fools" ask them "if Israel has the right to exist," the chant "Death to Israel" is "the most logical chant shouted across the world today."

"Understand what these slogans mean. 'From the river to the sea' means the absolute annihilation of the Zionist regime," Bazzi says in the video reviewed by Fox News Digital.

"It is absolute evil. It is a cancer in the Middle East and in the world. There is no way to deal peacefully with such an entity," Bazzi said. "There can be no two-state solution when you have a Zionist aggressor that knows no limits. A Zionist aggressor that will steal land and slaughter children and that will take pride in doing such deeds."

"So yes, this is a class struggle in part. This is a national struggle in part," Bazzi continued. "But I tell you, this is something deeper than all of that. This is a divine struggle. This is a struggle of divine justice against satanic injustice.....

"The right to pick up a weapon and fire it at your enemy that is kidnapping and imprisoning your children, that is murdering your family, that is stealing your home, usurping your resources," Bazzi said. "That right, that right for self-defense doesn't come from the UN. We don't wait for America to give it to us. It comes from God."

"There is a price to pay for that victory. Blood must be spilled. Martyrdom must be sought after. Resistance is necessary in any way possible," Bazzi continued. "When the rockets are there, let them fire the rockets. When the rockets run out, then let them throw rocks, and when the rocks are all gone, then let them lift these hands, ball them into fists, and let them punch until victory comes."

"Over here, we have a duty as well. We may not have the rockets and the rocks, and we may not be able to throw those punches, but we do have a duty," Bazzi added. "This is a divine global struggle."

Bazzi later instructed the crowd to tell the FBI to "go to hell" if they come knocking on their doors."



These are not "just words" with guaranteed protection. They are words meant to incite and ignore the laws here. That is not part of the Bill of Rights.

Well said.

 

[sctrojan2006]

"An anti-Israel activist who went viral over the weekend in Michigan for spurring "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" chants has a history of espousing violent rhetoric.

Tarek Bazzi, a Michigan-based activist associated with the Hadi Institute, ignited the chants this past Friday during a speech at an International Al-Quds Day rally in Dearborn, which subsequently drew widespread attention and criticism on social media.

"Imam Khomeini, who declared the International Al-Quds Day, this is why he would say to pour all of your chants and all of your shouts upon the head of America," Bazzi said in the video shared by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

After Bazzi made his comments, the crowd began chanting, "Death to America!" Bazzi later shifted his attention to Israel, telling the audience that when "fools" ask them "if Israel has the right to exist," the chant "Death to Israel" is "the most logical chant shouted across the world today."

"Understand what these slogans mean. 'From the river to the sea' means the absolute annihilation of the Zionist regime," Bazzi says in the video reviewed by Fox News Digital.

"It is absolute evil. It is a cancer in the Middle East and in the world. There is no way to deal peacefully with such an entity," Bazzi said. "There can be no two-state solution when you have a Zionist aggressor that knows no limits. A Zionist aggressor that will steal land and slaughter children and that will take pride in doing such deeds."

"So yes, this is a class struggle in part. This is a national struggle in part," Bazzi continued. "But I tell you, this is something deeper than all of that. This is a divine struggle. This is a struggle of divine justice against satanic injustice.....

"The right to pick up a weapon and fire it at your enemy that is kidnapping and imprisoning your children, that is murdering your family, that is stealing your home, usurping your resources," Bazzi said. "That right, that right for self-defense doesn't come from the UN. We don't wait for America to give it to us. It comes from God."

"There is a price to pay for that victory. Blood must be spilled. Martyrdom must be sought after. Resistance is necessary in any way possible," Bazzi continued. "When the rockets are there, let them fire the rockets. When the rockets run out, then let them throw rocks, and when the rocks are all gone, then let them lift these hands, ball them into fists, and let them punch until victory comes."

"Over here, we have a duty as well. We may not have the rockets and the rocks, and we may not be able to throw those punches, but we do have a duty," Bazzi added. "This is a divine global struggle."

Bazzi later instructed the crowd to tell the FBI to "go to hell" if they come knocking on their doors."



These are not "just words" with guaranteed protection. They are words meant to incite and ignore the laws here. That is not part of the Bill of Rights.

Nice. Move the goal post.

The topic was saying the phrase “Death to America” and the act of burning the American flag. Both are protected under the First Amendment.

 

[sctrojan2006]

How about "Gas the Jews"?

As for Death to America", no. However, I used to arrest for 415 somewhat frequently for inciting to violence, causing a violent reaction (fight), etc.

I am sure you did. The law has merit, I am not questioning that. It just doesn’t apply to an arsehole saying, “Death to America.”

 

[sctrojan2006]

Let’s yell fire in a crowed auditorium..

Interesting…

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1748&context=wmborj

 

[uscvball]

Nice. Move the goal post.

The topic was saying the phrase “Death to America” and the act of burning the American flag. Both are protected under the First Amendment.

It's not moving the goal post at all. It's connecting the people who push the goal posts over and chuck them in the river. If the phrase "death to America" is considered to be inciting violence, it is not protected by 1A. Bazzi demonstrated a desire to not only encourage people to engage in violence, but to also be uncooperative with the FBI. How does he escape punishment when....

“We promise to do our very best to be safe and not do anything to get arrested," Mike Avery wrote on Facebook.

Three days later, the FBI arrested Avery for encouraging rioting across a handful of Facebook posts, according to his lawyer, Marleen Suarez. FBI agents had been reading his and other protesters’ social media posts looking for "potential flashpoints for violence" according to police records.

Avery is one of four known people across the United States indicted on charges of incitement to riot solely on the basis of social media posts, according to federal court records."


No, YOUR comment, not THE topic, was attempting to isolate certain phrases as though they are unilaterally static. There was a time when flag burning was not allowed and so the laws changed. Do you not believe there could be a time where, once again, the laws WRT flag burning are found to be not okay? I noticed that you ignored the names of people who have suffered the legal consequences of burning a BLM or Pride flag. Why were they not covered under 1A?

 

[Morley Drury]

One might question how chanting such things helps Hamas' cause. We get that this speaker doesn't think Hamas has killed enough Jews yet, but other than for some posters here, I'm not sure most Americans (other than certain valedictorians) find it convincing.

 

[sctrojan2006]

Do you have an actual case(s) where someone burned an LGBTQ or BLM flag that they owned, resulting in that person getting charged with a hate crime? If so, which case was it?

Enrique Tarrio
Adolfo Martinez
Angelina Cando
Patrick Murphy

Of those four you listed, how many burned a flag they owned?

 

[sctrojan2006]

No, YOUR comment, not THE topic, was attempting to isolate certain phrases as though they are unilaterally static.

The topic was specifically condemning protestors chanting "Death to America" and burning the American Flag. To which I responded:

Is there anyone on this board who has come out in support of chants of "Death to America" or the burning of the American flag? I haven't seen posts by anyone in support of either. I could see one supporting the right of Freedom of Speech, regardless of how sickening one perceives it, but not in direct support of the language or acts.

There was a time when flag burning was not allowed and so the laws changed. Do you not believe there could be a time where, once again, the laws WRT flag burning are found to be not okay?

There may have been in the past and there may be in the future, but that is not how it stands today.

I noticed that you ignored the names of people who have suffered the legal consequences of burning a BLM or Pride flag. Why were they not covered under 1A?

I didn't ignore it, I didn't see it. Of those you listed, how many owned the flags they burned? The only name I am familiar with is Tarrio. In his case, stealing and destroying the property of others is not protected under the First Amendment.

 

[uscvball]

Of those four you listed, how many burned a flag they owned?

Ownership is irrelevant. Has every person who ever burned an American flag been the owner of that flag? No.

The act is burning a flag and in some cases it is protected by 1A and sometimes not. Again, ownership is not part of the equation.

 

[uscvball]

I didn't ignore it, I didn't see it. Of those you listed, how many owned the flags they burned? The only name I am familiar with is Tarrio. In his case, stealing and destroying the property of others is not protected under the First Amendment.

Tarrio told the judge he was unaware where the flag came from. He wasn't the one who stole it. His conviction centered around the burning of the flag and everyone knows it.

BTW, the original case WRT flag burning legality was Texas v Johnson, 1984. In that case,

Gregory Lee Johnson, at a protest outside the 1984 Republican National Convention, burned an American flag stolen by another from a nearby flagpole. The act drew international media coverage, although nobody was actually injured.

At the time, Johnson’s act was a crime under Texas law and a court sentenced him to a year in prison and a fine of $2,000 for his actions. However, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeal reversed this ruling saying that “the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol.”

The case went from there all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, presenting the first case ever before them where they needed to decide whether a non-speech act such a burning the flag was protected by the First Amendment. In 1989, the Court ruled that while an act is not always protected simply by its intent to communicate a message, an act is protected where the is both 1) and intent to convey a particular message through an act and 2) whether the message was understood by the majority of those who viewed the act. They decided that Johnson’s act of burning the flag sent a clear message that was easily understood, and thus deserved First Amendment protection."


So you see, even the SC didn't care that the flag was stolen.

 

[sctrojan2006]

Tarrio told the judge he was unaware where the flag came from. He wasn't the one who stole it. His conviction centered around the burning of the flag and everyone knows it.

BTW, the original case WRT flag burning legality was Texas v Johnson, 1984. In that case,

Gregory Lee Johnson, at a protest outside the 1984 Republican National Convention, burned an American flag stolen by another from a nearby flagpole. The act drew international media coverage, although nobody was actually injured.

At the time, Johnson’s act was a crime under Texas law and a court sentenced him to a year in prison and a fine of $2,000 for his actions. However, the Texas Criminal Court of Appeal reversed this ruling saying that “the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol.”

The case went from there all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, presenting the first case ever before them where they needed to decide whether a non-speech act such a burning the flag was protected by the First Amendment. In 1989, the Court ruled that while an act is not always protected simply by its intent to communicate a message, an act is protected where the is both 1) and intent to convey a particular message through an act and 2) whether the message was understood by the majority of those who viewed the act. They decided that Johnson’s act of burning the flag sent a clear message that was easily understood, and thus deserved First Amendment protection."


So you see, even the SC didn't care that the flag was stolen.

Ownership is irrelevant. Has every person who ever burned an American flag been the owner of that flag? No.

The act is burning a flag and in some cases it is protected by 1A and sometimes not. Again, ownership is not part of the equation.

Texas v Johnson was about burning the American Flag, not any flag or banner in the shape of a flag.

None of the four people you listed were convicted or pled guilty to burning the American Flag, so the courts may not have felt Texas v Johnson applied to them. That is a Supreme Court matter; I do not believe any of these cases were brought before them. Were they?

What we do know is:

Only three of the four people you listed burned banners or flags related to BLM or LGBTQ; none of them belonged to them.

Tarrio and Martinez both burned stolen flags/banners of protected classes (race, sexual orientation). Both were found guilty or pled to the destruction of property.

Angela Cando was deemed mentally unfit to stand trial. She was charged with arson, criminal mischief, and reckless endangerment. The act she was accused of involved the burning of a flag or banner she did not own.

Patrick Murphy is irrelevant to this conversation since his case did not involve the burning of a flag, and the flags he destroyed did not belong to him.

Your general statement, "The act is burning a flag in some cases it is protected by 1A and sometimes not" is not the same as "The act of burning the American Flag, in some cases, is protected by the First Amendment and sometimes it is not."

I clearly stated that burning the American Flag is protected under the First Amendment. Am I wrong?

I asked Pudly "Do you have an actual case(s) where someone burned an LGBTQ or BLM flag that they owned, resulting in that person getting charged with a hate crime? If so, which case was it?" You listed four names of people in response to that question, and not a single one owned the flag that was burned. They were all stolen or taken without permission. One did not even burn the flag.

There is nothing further to discuss about this. If you do not believe the burning of the American Flag or chanting "Death to America" by protestors should be protected under the First Amendment, take it up with your representative and the Supreme Court.