Two important distinctions these hatefull people dont grasps. 1. They destroyed flags that they didn't own. So hatecrime asside it was not their property and at least the crime of property destruction. While often burned country flags are a protest form that uses their own flags.
2. Freedom of speech protects you from critique you voice against the goverment. Thats its purpose! While that isn't true anymore in america that was still the intended purpose. Hatespeech is an exception towards that because otherwise it would be contrary to other human rights. Goverments compared to humans can be critiqued in any way possible while human groups or individuals have human rights themselves. There are protected groups, like religions race and sexuality for example.
Indeed, a charge of vandalism makes perfect sense. Some fines and probation are in order. But a decade for a “hate crime” is nonsense by any rational measure. Nobody was hurt. Nobody was even threatened. Meanwhile people who are burning US flags ARE committing acts of violence and claiming that it is their right to hurt people and destroy property as their “freedom of expression”. If you can’t take it, you shouldn’t dish it out. “There are rights that everyone should have. There are rights that no one should have. But there should never be any rights that only some people have.” Also, you should reread the US Constitution. There are no “protected groups”. The Constitution is designed to protect all citizens equally. The clarification of certain groups came later because of lousy interpretations of the existing text. NOBODY is meant to receive special treatment under the law. Full stop.
I dont talk about the U. S. constitution. I talk about the human right charta. I disagree with "nobody was even threatened" that was obviously the main purpose of destroying stolen lgbtq flags.
"Meanwhile people who are burning US flags ARE committing acts of violence and claiming that it is their right to hurt people and destroy property as their “freedom of expression”." If its their own flag than no. otherwise its vandalism yes. But no they are not committing acts of violence. In what way is that an act of violence. Otherwise the same would be true for destroying lgbtq flags. They are neither hurting people, that is something completely different than destroying a flag.
"can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out" when it comes to individuals I agree but threatening a specific group of people, vs. criticizing a government is not the same at all. So no they are not taking what they dish out in this scenario. I completely agree everyone should have the same rights. At the same time there are rights that not everyone uses. Someone who burns an lgbtq+ flag has the right to not be target by a hatecrime because of their sexuality. A non religious person also has the right not to be targeted for their religion. Its just that some thing dont apply to some people, it doesn't mean they dont have that right. No one is receiving special treatment. Thats the purpose of human rights. It protects humans of any religion, race, gender, sexuality or nationality. It does not protect governments from being criticized.
You’ve chosen ignorance. IF destroying a rainbow flag is inherently a threat to people, THEN destroying a US flag is inherently a threat to the country. IF destroying a US flag is “merely a criticism” of that country, then destroying a rainbow flag is merely a criticism of people who hold it as a symbol of whatever. You can’t have it both ways, hypocrite.
If it's done by outsiders yeah I could agree. Terrorists destroying an American flag could be seen as a threat for sure. Inside the country from citizens thought its clearly not meant towards the people itself. Why would people threaten themselves? That wouldn't make sense. Also yes can be seen as a threat to not further support the government. In theory burning your own rainbow flag sure, I can see that as a critique, but why would you critique people for living? Criticizing that people exist is kinda a threat already. If you burn their flag and not yours its even clearer. I can see the same if you would try to burn the flag thats hanging at the white house. That would clearly be seen as a threat to the president. The problem you dont see is, that generally American flags are burned by their owners. While rainbow flags are generally burned that others own. So yes, burning your own flag is mostly a critique. You burn the flag as a form for what it means for the person. In the case of protestors burning an American flag they criticize the country under the current government and leadership. The rainbow flag is a sign for lgbtq peoples existance. So burning that clearly symbolizes an attack on their lives.
There shouldn't be a difference. However, one could argue that burning a rainbow flag is attacking a specific group, one that is legally protected, namely LGBTQ, while burning Old Glory only attacks a country, not a specific group of people.
What if they don’t own it, though? They take someone else’s property and destroy it. There are no other words or actions associated with their behavior. Is it just vandalism, or is it a greater crime? Do you think that someone could get away with destroying a rainbow flag in public even if they could prove it belongs to them?
So it is probably conversion and destruction of property - I am not a lawyer. What people can and cannot gfet away with largely depends on who is watching.
Agreed. My concern is about diverging interpretations of identical crimes. If the idiots in the video end up on the hook for a decade of prison for what amounts to vandalism, we have a serious problem. It probably won’t end up there because of the current federal administration, but i am definitely going to watch this case closely.
It's protected speech if you own the flag. It's vandalism if it's someone else's flag. Protesters burning the flag bring their own flag. People tearing down rainbow flags are vandalizing others property.
If i’m not the brightest, you have no flame at all. Work on your reading and comprehension. Or avoid my stuff altogether, troglodyte. Either way works for me.
It's the same reasoning behind why burning a cross on someone's lawn is considered a hate crime, but burning the flag is not. If you want clarification for your not so big of a flex "gotcha moment", look up the Supreme Court's decision on the case.
If they had bought a rainbow flag and burned it, would they be charged with a crime? No. It's like the difference between burning a cross in your backyard and doing so in the front yard of a black family.
Because Americans in general aren't a "protected group". Hate crime laws are meant to protect people from being targeted because of their ethnicity, religion, or, in this case, orientation.
You are mistaken. The US Constitution was written from the beginning to ensure that all ‘men’ were treated as equals. Later provisions had to be amended due to lousy early interpretations.
Not every law is covered in the Constitution. Laws can be overturned if found to be unconstitutional, but most laws aren't affected by constitutional considerations as they aren't referenced one way or the other.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > If dragging, tearing and burning the US flag is “freedom of expression”, how is doing the same to a rainbow flag a hate crime?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions