"Free Speech" vs. "GET THE H*LL OUT!"

[Drjones]

Where do we draw the line? How many openly American hating people must we tolerate before we deport them?

Do we deport them at all? Would that still make us a "free" country? You don't agree with us, so we're going to kick you out...

There is clearly a difference between disagreeing with the govt, country, etc. and simply hating it. I just read a letter to the ed. in my newspaper and the man writing the letter heard someone else saying how the US is a modern-day Hitler, Stalin, etc. That is sick. We're not perfect, but come on!

Do we have to tolerate NON-CITIZENS who come here and spout Anti-American garbage?

This says it eloquently:

"It's the soldier who salutes the flag, serves the flag, whose coffin is draped with the flag that allows the protester to burn the flag!!!"

With THAT in mind, flag burners make me want to do illegal things to them. How DARE they. Someone gives their life for a cause, only to have another USE that cause to spit upon it! Bah!

So basically, I guess my question is; where do we draw the line, if there is one at all?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

It's easy to say "my speech is protected but yours is not." Unfortunately, it's the unpopular speech that most needs defending. That includes morons in KKK outfits, and those who embrace Maoist ideals with the assumption that they'll be the ones in control, blissninnies who are scared of anything more dangerous than a pencil (including matches), and those who ccan only offer critiques of the "horrors" of the modern day without suggesting anything constructive to improve the situation.

Remember -- if we limit speech it won't be people like you and me that get to draw the line, it'll be the Schumers, Feinsteins, Clintons, and the rest. Speech like that sucks, but it's better than the alternatives.

 

[King]

I agree with Derek, although I don't appreciate some of what gets said by some Americans (including flag burning), I do support their first amendment right to have their say. That said, I have no problem with someone who desecrates our flag and verbally abuses our country getting their butt kicked for saying it either.

If one truly hates this country, they should get out. I don't see deportation in general terms as a possibility. However, I would like to see those with terrorist leanings, ties or politics deported if possible (assuming they have had some due process under the law).

As they say....America...love it or leave it.

 

[Poodleshooter]

You can SAY anything you like. IMHO, the dividing line is when something is given to a terrorist organization (money, assistance,time,etc). At that point you have crossed the line between free speech and treason. The critical issue is to properly decide what organizations are truly terrorist organizations.
Why should we find it mysterious that noncitizens come here and express their hatred of our country? Our citizen professors and celebrities have been doing the very same thing for decades.

 

[westex]

Anyone should be able to express any opinion they desire. However, they should be careful where, to whom and how they do it. Others may take offense and if so they may desire to express their counter opinion in stronger terms.

I know some actions have been interpreted by our courts as "freedom of speech" but in my opinion actions will cause a lot more potential problems than true speech ever would.

 

[TheOtherOne]

I'm with Poodleshooter, even though it may be horrible stuff and I might completely disagree, people are allowed and should continue to be allowed to say what they like. It's only when they act upon it and that action is illegal that something needs to be done.

 

[JPM70535]

Freedom of speech is just that. Whether or not we agree with the statements made by the speaker, his right to make them is absolute.

That having been said, Physical acts such as flag burning do not qualify as speech IMO. If one lives in this country he is free to criticize it , but if his speech advocates the destruction of the US or its citizens, then as far as I'm concerned he should at the very least be deported......Pronto

 

[faustulus]

If someone is in the country on a visa, then in effect they are guests of that nation. We can ask them to leave anytime we like.
Should we, I would say usually not, after all they are going to say it one way or another.

 

[2dogs]

Anyone, citizen or not should be able to say what they want.

I believe that to become a citizen of this country, you used to have to be able to speak the language and swear your allegiance to the USA. Is this still true?

All illegals should be deported. Anyone who is not willing to learn the language and swear allegiance should be deported. All illegals should be kept out. IMHO.

Pretty accepting guy, eh what?

 

[PATH]

The First Amendment must be protected as vigorously as the Second and all the others.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The Supreme Court does it pretty well. Some rules though that are easy to follow. No fighting words. No libel or slander. Free speech also depends on the forum (public, semi-public, private) and even if is public, it's subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

What I disagree with is the application of the full scope of civil liberty towards non-citizens. For instance, an illegal immigrant crosses the border and because (s)he intends to stay, the Constitution protects him/her. A tourist has been here for 25 days and will be leaving in another month. No intent to stay so no Constitutional protection. I'd simplify it that any foreign national without a work or student visa or not here because of an immediate relative who is born here (infant child situation) isn't allowed Constitutional safeguards.

 

[mnealtx]

I agree that speech should be protected...

BUT...

I do like the solution that the Louisiana governor back in 89-90 had. (Was it Buddy Roemer? One of you native Acadians correct me if I'm wrong)

Anyhoot, he recognized the fact that the Supreme Court had protected flag burning as a free speech issue... then stated that anyone that kicked the butachkis of a flag burner would be punished.....

....by a $5 fine

 

[trapshooter]

If you give an idiot a soapbox, then you'll know where he is and what he's up to. Take away the soapbox, and he goes underground.

 

[Seeker]

The First Amendment must, absolutley, be protected! Everyone should be able to say whatever they want - and if I don't like what I hear I have every right to ignore them or voice my own opinion.

Others may take offense and if so they may desire to express their counter opinion in stronger terms.

That's fine unless, by "stronger terms" you mean violence. No one has the right to initiate violence against another.

That having been said, Physical acts such as flag burning do not qualify as speech IMO.

hmmm.... what is the proper way to dispose of a flag? Burning, IIRC. So since you wouldn't fail in your duties to properly treat the flag, I'm guessin' you're opposed to people burning the flag in protest. Being opposed to free people protesting what they believe to govt on the wrong course flies in the face of the First Amendment. The American Flag is a symbol of Freedom it is not Freedom. There is a great big difference here. As the symbol of Freedom you are free to do with it whatever you want (provided that the item in question is your personal property and if burned it must be done in a safe manner so as to not allow the spread of fire). If it becomes the symbol of an oppressive govt that denies you your Rights of Property, Life, Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness then it is no longer a symbol of freedom, and it becomes the symbol of tryranny and blood may well need to be spilled to feed the roots of the Tree of Liberty.

The flag, truthfully, is a symbol and can be done away with. Freedom is everything!

btw Ol' Glory flies at my house 24x7, and is well lit at night, and I wear the colors (since 1990) on my arm everyday for the rest of my life.

 

[Drjones]

anyone that kicked the butachkis of a flag burner would be punished.....

....by a $5 fine

You mean are given $5?

 

[TheOtherOne]

All illegals should be deported. Anyone who is not willing to learn the language and swear allegiance should be deported. All illegals should be kept out. IMHO.

Swear allegiance, yes. Learning English however should not be required. Diversity is one of the things that makes this country such a great place. I don't think we should force everyone to be the same.

 

[Tamara]

4V50 Gary,

I'd simplify it that any foreign national without a work or student visa or not here because of an immediate relative who is born here (infant child situation) isn't allowed Constitutional safeguards.

So we could hold them without trial? Search their rooms while they were out and tap their phones? Deny them legal representation and "encourage" them to confess if held?

That would make the U.S. a real primo tourist destination. Right up there with Murmansk and Karl Marx Stadt.

 

[Tamara]

Drjones,

Let me get this straight.

If someone says or does something that pisses you off, that you find stupid or annoying, then you feel you should have the right to physically assault them?

And you allege that you carry a gun in public?

 

[Sean Smith]

Tamara,

To be precise he said he'd like to, not that he would or should.

I honestly don't care what people say. Who CARES if some halfwit hates America? If he does nothing but whine and help keep Starbucks in business buying half-caff soy milk lattes, I couldn't care less. Stupid people pay taxes, too, and statistically they pay more if you think about it.

 

[2dogs]

Learning English however should not be required. Diversity is one of the things that makes this country such a great place.

OK, well let's at least make them pay for their own "multi-lingual" signs, forms etc.

And, God yes, I should worship at the alter of diversity- but why should my tax dollars pay to cater to someone who refuses to learn the predominant language of this country? Not to sound hackneyed but, my grandparents were immigrants- they learned the language and became citizens. If they didn't want to then they could have stayed where they came from.

 

[Tamara]

2dogs,

OK, well let's at least make them pay for their own "multi-lingual" signs, forms etc.

Dude, there's a world of difference between passing yet another unconstitutional and unenforceable law about requiring everybody to learn English and providing forms and streetsigns in every language from Arabic to Zulu.

 

[2dogs]

there's a world of difference between passing yet another unconstitutional and unenforceable law about requiring everybody to learn English and providing forms and streetsigns in every language from Arabic to Zulu.

Did I say anything about passing laws requiring English? What I said was learning English should be (in fact is) a requirement for citizenship.

What I also said is that if anyone wants to stay in this country without learning the language then either let them try to get along on their own in their own language or let them foot the bill for the cost of providing services in their language.

From www.ins.gov:

"Welcome to the naturalization home page. Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is conferred upon a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The general requirements for administrative naturalization include:

a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;
residence in a particular INS District prior to filing;
an ability to read, write and speak English;
a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;
good moral character;
attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and,
favorable disposition toward the United States. "

It doesn't require more laws- what it requires is that the Communist junta now in power enforce the laws of this country that actually do something to make it a better place, rather than more nonsensical "sensible" gun laws and laws against kids shooting people with french fries.

:banghead:

 

[David Scott]

It is possible to love your country and still deplore the actions of the people running it. George W. Bush is not "America" just as Bil Clinton was not "America". Interesting that verbal attacks on Dubya are considered "unpatriotic" while attacks on Clinton were "moral high ground". Im my opinion, creating a system of star-chamber secret courts and curtailing civil liberties is a bigger betrayal of public trust than extramarital sex.

I'm not ashamed to call myself a patriot, nor am I ashamed to say that I believe the "war on terror" is being used as an excuse to set up a government just one small step away from fascism. My patriotism is not for a President or political party, it's for the Constitution that allows me to question them when I believe they're wrong. The same attitude in China would get me a cell next to the leaders of Falun Gong.

Flag burning? I see it as an expression of outrage over government policy. I don't think it's an effective technique, but I understand why some use it, and I think it qualifies as protected speech provided the burner buys his own flag.

 

[2dogs]

Dude

Tamara

Does this mean I can call you "Babe"?

 

[pax]

You know, people who advocate violence in response to mere speech make me just want to punch them in the chops!

Say what you wish. If I don't like what you have to say, I either won't listen, or I'll say what I wish, as persuasively as I can. But I won't point a gun at your head for saying it, and I won't hire someone else to point a gun at you for it either.

As for flag burning. Seems to me that even most of the flag burners have forgotten the original reason folks were burning the flag. So I'll put it here, just because I can. The thinking was that the proper way to treat a flag which has been dishonored, is to burn it. So, if the acts of certain public officials (notably the president) have despoiled what the flag stands for, burning the flag is a powerful statement which says, "This flag has been dishonored."

Of course, now when people burn flags, they are saying, "death to America" or "I hate the President" or expressing hatred for what America stands for. Nevertheless, when the flag-burning protests first started, they were a powerfully American way of expressing a valid viewpoint.

pax

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -- Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 1907 (many times wrongfully attributed to Voltaire)