This flag in Virginia needs to go as well.

[Joe the Revelator]

I don't give a god damn if its on private property, its an embarrassment and a state wide shame.

http://wtvr.com/2014/06/02/virginia-flaggers-erect-second-confederate-flag/

[Joe the Revelator]

1. Here is their website

Last edited Sat Jun 20, 2015, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

http://vaflaggers.blogspot.com/

[LiberalElite]

26. God - they're still fighting the war

Time to come out of the woods guys and surrender. It's been over for a couple generations already.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. And the 1st amendment?

No sane court is going to accept that the display of a confederate flag is an incitement to criminal behaviour. So the only way you could ban them would be repealing the 1st amendment.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Incitement to what? N.T.

[NuclearDem]

50. Imminent lawless action. Read up on it.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. So speech that pisses someone off to the point of violence is bannable.

The asshole in South Carolina was pissed off to the point of violence. Do we want to ban all the speech that made him mad?

[NuclearDem]

71. No, speech that could reasonably provoke imminent lawless action is.

See: inciting a riot.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Again, this is a ridiculous argument.

Basically it gives a heckler's veto to anyone who is gonna get mad about something.

The same legal rationale -- which, by the way, would never fucking fly in an actual court of law in the US - by which DU seems to think they would be able to outlaw Mohammed Cartoons or people flying the Confederate Flag on their own property --- could also be used against, say, Gay Pride parades.

It makes someone real mad. It "provokes lawless action".

It's a completely nonsensical and fundamentally unconstitutional argument. I'm not sure why simply saying "yes, people are bigoted fuckwads, but they have the 1st Amendment right to be bigoted fuckwads" is so difficult.

[NuclearDem]

75. Um...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Imminent lawless action. As in, directly advocating or extremely likely to immediately cause lawless action.

Inciting a riot on the spot meets that standard. Drawing a Mohammed cartoon and someone driving from three states away to shoot up the event hall isn't.

Brandenburg has been the standard on inflammatory speech for decades, and is much more permissive than the previous clear and present danger test.

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Right, and in practical terms, when is the last time someone was prosecuted for "incitement"?

People keep bringing that up, but it's not coincidental that they're not bringing that up in the context of someone getting on stage and yelling "burn the motherfucker down" to an angry crowd, any more than they're bringing up "shouting fire in a crowded theater" in the context of the unlikely example of someone actually shouting fire in an actual crowded theater.

Whatever the standard for prosecuting "incitement" under the precedent set in Brandenburg, it sure as shit hasn't been successfully used a whole lot since then, and it not only doesn't apply to blasphemous cartoons, it also doesn't apply to someone flying a bigoted flag on their own property.

[NuclearDem]

82. There's a kid in Baltimore being prosecuted for incitement to riot right now.

Rioting laws exist in just about every state.

But I think we got crossed somewhere, because I don't believe for a second simply waving the Dixie swastika is enough for the Brandenburg test. I'm pretty sure that's what I was telling that troll.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. And here's a perfect example of how that stuff can be easily misused by folks with an agenda.

If this is who you're talking about:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/06/man-who-filmed-freddie-gray-arrest-now-in-court/

I strongly suspect you would agree that this is wrong, and a deliberate attempt by the authorities to intimidate. I also doubt that the prosecution will hold up.

Beyond that, though, we're in agreement on the fundamentals.

[Warren DeMontague]

52. Oh God, Not This Shit Again.

You are wrong, with this argument.

[tritsofme]

8. What other types of speech would you like to criminalize?

Since you have placed the First Amendment on the cutting room floor.

[tritsofme]

15. And who gets to decide what is "hatemongering"? What types of speech get criminalized?

When Republicans are in power, their priorities for banning speech may be different from your own.

Thankfully the First Amendment protects all speech from people like you with an authoritarian mindset.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. It's disconcerting how many people on DU seem to think the 1st Amendment is a big problem.

I think racism and hate are big problems, but getting rid of the 1st Amendment won't get rid of those things.

[shenmue]

3. Yep

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. I give a damn if it's on private property.

The state should not display emblems indelibly associated with racism.

However, it should not prohibit individuals from doing so.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. If its done to incite people (putting it directly over I-95 on the way to washington)

then it should not be allowed. It should be banned in the same way Nazi paraphernalia is in Germany.

[madville]

16. Disagree

Shame the property owners publicly, notify their employers, boycott their businesses, etc.

The government should stay out of it on private property if it's not a copyright, slander or libel issue.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Incite people to what?

Incitement to crime? Incitement to crime is not protected speech, yes, but the display of a confederate flag obviously isn't that.

Or incitement to something else?

[Warren DeMontague]

56. This fucking "incitement" argument. No one seems to realize that the asshole who shot up the church

probably felt he was "incited" to violence by all sorts of shit.

Saying "speech that might make someone really mad is not protected under the 1st Amendment" is not only a constitutionally fallacious argument, it's pretty much logically and ethically indefensible as well.

[davidn3600]

65. THIS ISN'T GERMANY!!!

Yes, I understand that Germany banned Nazi flags and such. But this isn't Germany. And Germany doesn't have a first amendment like we do. Most European governments have more power to quash this type of thing. Our Constitution limits our government's ability to do that.

And no, this is not "yelling fire in a crowded theater." Why? Because yelling "fire" is not political speech. Putting up a flag,..that's political speech. And political speech is protected.

Otherwise what's to stop some Christians from claiming Gay Pride marches should be illegal since some Christians find it offensive? Are we now going to ban everything in this country because some group might find it offensive and react violently?

[merrily]

5. Aid and comfort to the enemy. Private property or not.

Some of these fuckers are still talking secession. You can't even make a JOKE about a terrorist legally in some spots and we allow the flag of rebels and white supremacists to fly proudly?

[onenote]

29. I marched against the Vietnam War along side folks carrying the flag of North Vietnam

I take it you were (or would have been) on the side of those claiming those marchers should be arrested for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[merrily]

32. It's not the same. For one thing, in which part of North Vietnam were you marching?

[onenote]

34. Apart from worrying about my syntax, care to explain how it differs?

I can think of one way, but it doesn't help your case.

[merrily]

41. Huh? Who's worrying about syntax?

And are you always that supercilious and challenging? Who do you think you're talking to?

Or, if you prefer, to who do you think you're posting?

You're a lawyer. If you cannot distinguish the fact patterns in at least three ways, too bad

[onenote]

53. Here's one way:

The Vietnam War was an actual ongoing conflict with a current enemy.

Of course, that would make the case for punishing those who carried the flag stronger.

Your turn: Show me a relevant distinction that makes the case for having the government punish people for flying the Confederate flag stronger than the case -- not strong -- for punishing carrying the flag of Vietnam in the 60s.

[HassleCat]

7. Thanks for the link

I didn't really explore the site, but did read the screed on the front page. It's obvious these people are a splinter group of an offshoot, since they can't seem to get along with the other "southern heritage" groups. I like the way they always cite southern heritage, without specifying what that means. When pressed, they spit out some vague stuff about states' rights, blah, blah...

[Journeyman]

11. There used to be one that big on the main freeway from Central California into Los Angeles. . .

It flew above a gas station at the bottom of the L.A. side of the Grapevine, the name given to U.S. 5 as it crosses the mountains between central and southern California. This was decades ago.

There were numerous efforts made to get it removed but for the longest time it was a fruitless effort -- the flag was on private property, and though you'd think it would harm business, the fool kept flying it. He kept it illuminated at night. We stopped at the gas station once, but only to use the restroom, and truly just to say we'd pissed at the base of the Stars & Bars.

I don't know what happened to cause the flag to be removed, but one trip we noticed it was no longer there. Perhaps it was the unofficial economic boycott that forced that good ol' boy's hand, maybe political pressure, or it could have been something as simple as a corporate office threatening to pull his franchise ticket if he didn't stop embarrassing them. Whatever it took, it disappeared one day, never to return.

I suspect that Virginia flag will be a might harder to get down, but there's no harm in trying. If you ask to use their restroom, though, you may think twice before telling them why. My piss truth certainly pissed off a pissant working the pumps.

[tritsofme]

13. Tragedy often popularizes authoritarian ideas such as yours.

You throw the First Amendment under the bus with great ease.

Whether or not it is private property makes all the difference.

[Joe the Revelator]

19. I did some reasearch and it would appear that the SCOTUS agrees with you

I still hate it though.

[tritsofme]

23. The First Amendment is tough.

It protects some pretty nasty shit.

In the 70s for instance, the ACLU famously defended the right of neo-Nazis to march through the heavily Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie.

Speech should be met with more speech. People who choose to fly that horrible flag should be shamed and denounced, but they should not be made criminals.

[merrily]

37. The SCOTUS, being as RW as it is, would probably protect it.

However, seditious speech is not protected and neither is speech that incites to violence. In my opinion, hate speech should not be protected either, though drawing lines might be difficult with hate speech.

[tritsofme]

38. It would likely be a unanimous decision, if it ever got that far.

The exceptions you mention are very narrow and well defined.

When you start subjectively criminalizing speech you are going down a dark path.

[merrily]

39. Joke about terrorism in an airport or on a plane?

When you are tolerant toward symbols of white supremacy and secession, you are going down a dark path as well. I acknowledged that there would have to be a lot of line drawing as to hate speech, but courts do that all the time.

I wrote a post the other day about how healing had been the priority after the Civil War, but maybe the Union should not have bent over backwards quite so far to achieve that. Perhaps all the antebellum and confederacy worship should have been nipped in the bud then.

[tritsofme]

43. Threats have never been protected speech.

I stand with the ACLU and those who defend the First Amendment even for those people whose speech I abhor.

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. The ideas must be challenged and shamed, not turned into thoughtcrimes.

[merrily]

44. I said joke.

There is no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.

My post acknowledged there was not one at present. BTW, it doesn't have to be a crime.

[tritsofme]

45. After the Elonis decision this year I'm not so sure the government would prevail in that sort of

prosecution, if it was a joke and not a true threat. The First Amendment certainly doesn't protect you from the airline banning you from their skies after such a "joke"

And I'm not sure how you would ever implement around the First Amendment in a policy of prior restraint on speech that you subjectively find distasteful.

[merrily]

46. I said I didn't think hate speech should be protected.

That would mean a court would have held it not be protected by the First Amendment.

If it's not protected, I would not have to "implement around the First Amendment in a policy of prior restraint on speech that you subjectively find distasteful." And speech I subjectively find distasteful is different from hate speech. Why do you keep changing my wording to make my position sound weaker? I don't respect that kind of posting game at all. It doesn't intimidate me and it sure doesn't impress me, so if we have another exchange, don't bother.

I used to take the same position you are taking, so I get it. I don't anymore. That's all.

[tritsofme]

47. There is no universal definition to hate speech, that is the problem.

The definition that you arrive at is necessarily subjective, and as time goes on it is bound to be a political weapon.

[merrily]

49. there is no universal definiton for any kind of protected speech or unprotected speech

Courts are still drawing lines or there would be no new First Amendment Scotus cases. They did finally extricated themselves from the business of consuming porn by coming up with "community standards" to replace "no redeeming value." However, until then, they had to decide case by case. The class of speech was porn or obscenity. The standard by which it was judged was "no redeeming value." However, whether a given movie or recording or comedy act or whatever had no redeeming value was decided case by case, with each case drawing another line.

If the SCOTUS decides to say that hate speech is not protected, they will come up with a standard to apply, as it did for obscenity and porn and every other type of speech they decided was not unprotected.

[tritsofme]

60. The trend has been toward liberalization of standards

And this consensus is very positive. It would be a real shame if speech restrictionists reasserted power. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that your preferred version of "hate speech" would be forever upheld, especially by Republican appointed judges who might have very different ideas of speech they would like to ban under such a regime.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Porn isnt protected speech? There's a 10 Billion dollar a year industry that disagrees.

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 07:56 PM - Edit history (1)

And SCOTUS "standards" on the matter are a joke- starting with Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" all the way up to the so-called standard in use today, the "community standards" definition of "obscenity".

"Community standards" for obscenity are a joke because it is basically impossible to argue, in our 21st century interconnected media world, that there is any sort of definable "community" who would find consenting adult sex acts "obscene" in such a way that it could be drawn broadly enough to criminalize the speech of, say, youporn or the like. Or in other words, for every community that doesnt like it, there is another that DOES.

And short of culture war reprobates like Rick Santorum, no one on either side of the aisle is remotely interested in trying.

Simply put, if the SCOTUS had been even the slightest bit interested in putting the kabosh on pornography, they wouldnt have overturned Clinton's online decency law (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). Instead, They did, and now that horse is long out of the barn.

And a wise decision, as well- because leaving aside the moral panic "culture in crisis" concerns, it is well nigh impossible to come up with a consistent and enforceable universal standard of "obscenity" in a pluralistic, interconnected, 21st century society. What is "obscene" to some people- oral sex, gay sex, al yankovik getting freaky with bubble wrap- is a wholesome saturday night's entertainment to others.

And so it is with so-called "hate speech". What is hate speech to one person or group, is not to another. The government not only should not be in the business of making objective determinations about the content of speech, it simply can't. Not rationally, not consistently. Not without taking a position that one set of beliefs, belonging to one group, is the "right" one, to the exclusion of the view of others.

Bottom line, though, the principle of free expression is far more important than silencing even the most obnoxius voices among us.

[merrily]

69. If you thought my post said nothing salacious or obscene is protected, then you misread

my post. In any event, I used porn and obscenity only as an example of how courts draw lines.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. And yet, it's an excellent example because the court pretty much doesn't draw lines, anymore.

There were a couple spurious prosecutions under Alberto Gonzalez, I think, and the porn company plea bargained rather than go to trial, so no underlying consititutional issue was challenged or adjudicated.. but by and large when you're talking about "obscenity" in the context of consenting adult media, again, it is the very impossibility of achieving a consistent objective standard which precludes the courts getting involved.

It's the same thing with laws against "hate speech"- achieving a consistent and objective standard is next to impossible, leaving aside the serious constitutional problems with criminalizing ANY expression of opinion, no matter how odious.

[merrily]

72. Of course the court draws lines on speech all the time, even though it finally left porn in

particular standards. Please stop focusing on porn. It's not the point.

[Warren DeMontague]

74. where?

Where has the court determined the expression of a particular opinion, as opposed to a different opinion, is not protected under the 1st Amendment?

So no, there are no "lines" when it comes to saying "this opinion is okay, but that one is not". Even if Opinion A is perfectly fine and Opinion B is the opinion of a shithead. Because that is flatly unconstitutional. Look at Fred Phelps protesting funerals-- You can't get much more obnoxious than that. But still, protected speech.

(And no, I'm not talking about threats or other plainly not-protected speech, but those examples are not relevant to this argument.)

[merrily]

76. Please reply to what I post and not to things I didn't post. I did not post that

the Court has held that expressions of differing opinions are not protested. Nothing remotely like that.

Speaking of differing opinions, though, the bottom line here is that I've reached the point where I'd like to see hate speech go unprotected and you disagree. I used to be on your side of this issue. I'm not anymore. I'm fine with your having a different view. I get it and I have no need to attempt to belittle you for it.

We don't have to build a bunch of straw men or pretend I posted silly things about the First Amendment in order to reach that conclusion.

[Warren DeMontague]

78. I understand.

(edited to add: In answer to your point, what is commonly accepted as "hate speech" IS an opinion. The opinion of bigots, racists and assholes, to be sure, but still an opinion. That's how I got there)

But there is a difference- a big one- between believing it should not be protected, and arguing that it isn't.

It is, that's my point. I do understand you having a different viewpoint, but as long as the 1st Amendment remains in place it is unlikely to change.

[merrily]

81. Yes people differ on what is hate speech, just as some differ on whether certain words amount

to seditious speech, whether certain specific words create a clear and present danger, etc. Even the Court is not always unanimous on particular wording. But, those are the kinds of First Amendment decisions courts have made year in and year out for centuries.

My view that hate speech should be another exception to absolute First Amendment protection may never prevail, and I get that, too. Republicans in particular seem to have a libertarian approach to the First Amendment, since the Rehnquist Court anyway. And that has so far culminated in holding that money is political speech and corporations are people and therefore Congress can do zero about money and secrecy in political campaigns. I don't agree with that either.

Still, I would like to see the extreme forms of hate speech go unprotected. I think we are becoming more and more conscious that it is deadly. It causes people to kill African Americans and gays and to blow up federal buildings. I don't think the nation or freedom will suffer much if people are not totally free to urge others again and again to do that kind of shit. I don't think courts carving out some limited, reasonable exceptions to absolute First Amendment protection of that kind of speech will destroy liberty in general.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. I tend to side with the ACLU on questions pertaining to the 1st Amendment.

Wherever that puts me on the political spectrum, I don't actually much care.

[merrily]

85. I am usually on the side of the ACLU as well, and proudly so. BTW, the ACLU gives Sanders a 100%

rating, so you are in outstanding company.

[Duckhunter935]

24. Thats what got us the PATRIOT act

[BlueJazz]

14. I fly the Confederate Flag..kinda'

?w=700

[Warren DeMontague]

58. And that, too, is protected speech.

However, the people who are gonna fall all over themselves to argue that "incitement" is somehow constitutionally bannable don't get that that is EXACTLY the sort of statement they are advocating be outlawed, whether they realize it or not.

[BlueJazz]

62. Your words are true. I certainly don't particularly like the Confederate flag but you know what?

There's a hell-of-lot of things I don't like... constitutionally or not.
Street Preachers screaming their guts out that we're all going to burn like crispy critters.....Ads on TV...my neighbors putting enough pesticide on their damn lawn to kill most of the bugs on the planet. The kids across the street yelling and shouting at 6:30 Am Sunday morning.

And the list goes on plus everybody has their own list.
Having said all that though, it's wonderful to be alive and enjoy the things that I love in life.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Beyond not liking... I can certainly understand how it is a symbol, analogous to African Americans,

as to how I coming from a family of Jews view Swastikas and Nazi Flags.

Deeply offensive and representative of a history of atrocities against all that makes us human.

But I can hold that opinion and still understand why the 1st Amendment as a principle is big enough and important enough to even protect the nastiest, most offensive expressions of speech and belief.

[BlueJazz]

67. People just want to try to fix things. Their actions, to them, would somehow make life..

...a little better for the oppressed. I think they know in their hearts that the problem lies far deeper than one symbolic flag.

[Throd]

21. I have to support their right to fly it.

I don't have to like it, but I have to support it.

[Travis_0004]

22. Stupid idea

If you want to shame them to take it down, then its your right to do so, but the government should not be banning free speech, so I would not support the government taking it down.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. Confederate flags need to be banned or if not then shredded

[A HERETIC I AM]

27. There's one that is (or was, haven't been past for a while) flown along I 75 in the Tampa area...

for quite a while.

I don't know if it is a business or a home or what, but it is on a tall mast and the flag is huge and it flys right next to the interstate, a very busy section of it as well.

Tampa. It's everywhere.

[roamer65]

28. If it's on private property, it's protected by the 1st amendment of our Constitution.

That said, that POS flag should NOT be flying, depicted, or on display at or in ANY governmental institutions...INCLUDING government funded museums.

[onenote]

30. Museums? What else should be banned from museums?

No pun intended, but no thanks to whitewashing history.

[roamer65]

33. Why should I have to pay tax dollars to have it displayed?

Private museum? That's just fine it they want that symbol of racism. Otherwise, I dont want my taxes going for it.

If that POS thing is anywhere in the Smithsonian, it should be removed.

[onenote]

35. Lamest argument ever.

[roamer65]

36. Got one on your front lawn?

Or is it on the back bumper of your truck? Lol.

Ask african Americans if they want their tax money going to display it.

[Throd]

42. So you want to erase history.

That puts you in some mighty fine company.

[roamer65]

48. Hell...I'll go a step further...we ended Reconstruction way too soon.

Instead of ending in 1877, it obviously should have been extended out about 50 years longer. Confederates should have been tried and executed for treason and war crimes, just like Nuremberg.

[onenote]

51. Nope. Nothing on my front lawn. Do you burn books on yours?

[tarheelsunc]

31. I have to drive past that flag all the time and it makes me angry inside every time.

I am glad that others are taking notice, even though it's pretty hard to miss if you're ever on I-95 through VA.

[struggle4progress]

40. I would go after the official Mississippi state flag

[Kalidurga]

61. You are right, do you think this would be better...

[struggle4progress]

63. I'd personally go with what lost the non-binding referendum in 2001:

It's a bit too reminiscent of the original confederate flag



for my tastes, but it's different enough, and it's not an eyesore

[Warren DeMontague]

55. It's obnoxious and offensive

however people have the right under the 1st Amendment to be obnoxious and offensive.

Personally, I like it when bigoted fuckwads advertise their bigoted fuckwadditry, it makes them easier to avoid.

[Logical]

57. Not sure I want the government taking action on private property. nt

[davidn3600]

64. It's private property by private individuals/organizations

Should that flag be on public state capitals? No. But private individuals have a right to fly that flag. It's freedom of speech. You can't stop private individuals from flying it on their own property.

I'm sorry...and I understand some people find that flag hurtful. But this is a free country where people have a right to their political opinions no matter how stupid, misguided, and hurtful they are.

The idea that the government should have the authority to ban certain flags, symbols, or opinions it doesn't agree with...that's not something I could support...nor would it be Constitutional.

[Fawke Em]

79. Should include this, too:

[spanone]

80. this is an embarrassment too...nashville, tn

private property along I-65 south of town

nathan bedford forrest