SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ilaine who wrote (125602)7/16/2005 12:07:31 PM
From: John Carragher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793670
 
Don't criminalize his attitude.

hopefully, we get to vote on this issue. my vote is to take some type of action against flag burning. The penalty should be severe enough to discourage anyone from burning the flag except to properly retire the flag under guidelines.



To: Ilaine who wrote (125602)7/16/2005 5:07:14 PM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793670
 
Then what's being punished is your attitude

Or rather the content of your speech. Reverence = ok, defiance = not OK. That's a 1st Amendment no-no.

I think the kid is screwed though. No expression, just conduct.

Derek



To: Ilaine who wrote (125602)7/17/2005 9:41:39 AM
From: Bridge Player  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793670
 
Then what's being punished is your attitude, and criminalizing people's attitude is as un-American as it gets.

Isn't that precisely the basis of so-called hate crime legislation? Criminalizing the motive, reason, thought process if you will, of someone who commits a crime?

Congress defines hate crime as:

" a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

Section 280003(a) of the
Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (28 U.S.C. 994 note).

Do you believe that this legislation is unconstitutional?