Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EdgeXXX
True, but that is because it is still a form of communication. Even though it could be argued that by burning the flag, those people are just trying to communicate their point. But I don't buy this argument. Freedom of speech only goes so far, and personally I feel that this action falls outside of that and therefor should not be protected as a form of "freedom of speech".
|
That's bullshit. The first Admendment especially protects speech no one likes. After all why wouuld speech everyone agrees with need protecting? You can burn an old tatter flag and it's considered proper, but if you burn it because you are protesting teh government then it's not ok. If that's not the definition of what the 1st Admendment is protecting then we should just tear the damned Constitution uip and burn that too.
Aks yourself this, WHY does ANY speech need protecting?
ANSWER: because sometimes the government doesn't like what you have to say.
All these guys who have miltary experience that tell people like me "You haven't served to you don't get it" no YOU don't get it. Go re-read you induction oath
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;"
there is an old saying " I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"
Any military person that does not believe this is an emabarassment to the uniform, a hypocrite and a traitor.