When will they outlaw the Confederate flag?

[flyingferret 0]

Descrating /= owning

Maybe if I repeat it enough someone will think about it.

And just for a small procedural point....to my knowledge the amedment is not passed yet.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I could ask when we were gonna outlaw the n-word or chink, but I think it would be a fruitless conversation.

I don't. Come to think of it, plenty of governmental and quasi-governmental agencies have banned words and symbols. Public Universities do it all the time. So do private, though I do not take much issue with the private universities doing so.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't. Come to think of it, plenty of governmental and quasi-governmental agencies have banned words and symbols. Public Universities do it all the time. So do private, though I do not take much issue with the private universities doing so.

Right. Now we have examples of both the right and the left trying to outlaw certain speech either directly, or with PC pressure, or by legal means or whatever. Now we know what we are getting into. These posts have a similar feel to the ten commandment posts, but with all the players switching sides. Orwell was right, some animals are more equal than others.

I don't know why Vallerina wants to outlaw the confederate flag (). It would just be another chip into private property and speech rights. I think we've had enough of those this week so far.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[flyingferret 0]

Ummm....organizations prohibiting usage is not the same as 'outlaw' which implies a law which criminalizes something.

I am not allowed to show up for work in shorts. That however does not say anything about short being illegal, rather it says what my paying orgnaization deems appropriate in an environment.

You see allowing people the choice to control their own business and residence is in fact based on the same principles that would choose not to outlaw certain things. That is the duality....that restricting something on a micro level can be an example of freedom on a macro level.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[wildblue 7]

Quote

Descrating /= owning

Hey, if you're allowed to own/display a cross, I should be allowed to burn one.


/me runs

it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I am not allowed to show up for work in shorts. That however does not say anything about short being illegal, rather it says what my paying orgnaization deems appropriate in an environment.

Two things - First, that is why I brought up the issue of public universities. When a public governmental body makes rules and regulations, they are laws. For example, there is no law banning BASE jumping in Yosemite, so long as you have a license. NPS policy is that BASE jumping is not an appropriate use. Therefore, it is illegal because no permits will be issued.

Second - there is a difference between showing up in shorts and saying non-pc words. Manner of dress is a "content neutral" restriction. These are fine.

Banning certain words is a "content-based" restriction. of course, in the Aguilar case, the California Supreme Court ruled that it's okay for a court to make orders banning people from saying certain non-PC words. It was a sad day...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Hey, if you're allowed to own/display a cross, I should be allowed to burn one.

I think that is the most articulate point I've seen made on the issue. Displaying a US flag is speech meant to inform people of your belief in your patriotism. Burning a flag is also speech.

Displaying a cross tells people from afar, "I'm a church." Or, that you have religious values or value what that religion is. Burning a cross is similar speech.

Well said, wildblue.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[craichead 0]

Hmm...are you listening to Fresh Air on NPR?

_Pm

Politics & Society: Richard J. Ellis and the Pledge of Allegiance

In 2002, a federal judge ruled that the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state. An uproar ensued. But as Richard J. Ellis, author of To the Flag: The Unlikely History of the Pledge of Allegiance, points out in his book, those words were not included in the pledge when it was written in 1892 -- they were added in 1950. Ellis is the Mark O. Hatfield Professor of Politics at Willamette University in Salem, Ore.

Politics & Society: John M. Coski and the Confederate Flag

John M. Coski is author of The Confederate Battle Flag: America's Most Embattled Emblem. The book looks at the flag's history and the various meanings attached to it. Some people view it as a symbol of white supremacy and racial injustice; others think it represents a rich Southern heritage. Coski is historian and library director at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, Va.

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[flyingferret 0]

I dont know if I should be amazed at your logic as a lawyer or expect it.

What you describe with BASE jumping is called a loophole or semantics or legal vaguery, take your pick. BUT...it is not illegal. Illegal by definition is against the law. Now we all, including myself refer to it as illegal in passing speech sometimes for convenience. But in a discussion like this, semantic differences can be quite important. NPS governs parks, so in addition you have jurisdiction involved, and whole system of legislation in the USA.

SO on a larger scale you could argue about that, but the point remains that in many many cases smaller organization, municipal, private and otherwise make guidelines that accomplish the same effect as a law, when in fact it would be near impossible to actually legislate against. Of course people challenge these and then we have heirarchical courts and lawyers have jobs.

I suppose you could argue similar points about BSRs, USPA group membership, etc. and certain things that are in practicality ''illegal" due to risks incurred, etc. But in the legal sense of the term, they are by definition not illegal.

As for the state schools, that is a very interesting quandary. First....if you think the state is actively involved with a state school, you may not have gone to one. The state are involved in the most annoying ways, namely money and course approval....the latter prevent rapid content adoption and the former ties all kinds of string to policies. But they are far from involved in the daily policy decisions. Typically someone locally oversteps a boundary, someone challenges it, and then the outcome determines what stays. SO...simply to say that public universities make rules is far from saying the state government endorses them, at least until challenged.

In addition to this, you have the tenuous issue of publicity, money, tenured professors rights, etc. If you look you can find examples of professors at various public school championing or bludgeoning various causes relegious, political, and otherwise. Of course, depending on the action taken, the leaning of the person acted against, etc, etc, the next thing you know you are knee deep in a censorship lawsuit because someone made a comment about God, illegal immigrants, women, etc, etc. And often times it seems like the PC crowd is most willing to fight, and of course arguing against "sensitivity and tolerance" is a slippery issue in a public relations obsessed litiguous society. So...yeah, it gets complex.

Once again, since shorts is not a good example. I can be fired by derogatory speech, because of the impact in a workplace. I could probably even be expelled from a university depending on the offense situation. I cannot however be censored or lose citizen's rights over it. Of course I could face large consequences because of my viewpoint, but that is quite different from censorship.

I am not familiar with the Aguilar case, but will comment that it is the apparently the California Supreme Court, which is neither surprising or the end of the appeals process.


Anyway....all of that said. The thread started over outlawing a symbol. You could argue that my clothing was a symbol if you really wanted to I suppose, but seems like a reach.

As for your cross analogy...I thought burning a cross was racially motivated? Could be wrong, that was my preception. Additionally, is burning a cross illegal?

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You could argue that my clothing was a symbol if you really wanted to I suppose, but seems like a reach.

Attire is frequently argued successfully under Free Speech. I also think that's a reach too to mandate that via legislation.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Whats up Ron


dude who does this stuff insult?

Why would you want Malcom X's symbol?

Why would you want the little support our troops ribbon?

Why would someone put the USPA wings on their car?

Why have a cross?

Why have a Star of David?

I can't think of any group of people who would be insulted by the above. But i can see why some people would find the confederate flag insulting. What am i missing?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[flyingferret 0]

Well I think the real issue is should you legislate based insults.

BUT...there are plenty of people that would be offended.
Skinheads would not like Malcolm X symbolism
Aethists would not like Jewish or Christian symbolism
etc, etc.

The exponential problem is that if you allow offense to determine it, who draws the line as to whose offense is reasonable, and how does that not offend someone?
I have always that the problem with the argument of tolerance is that by definition it is intolerant of people who are intolerant. Due to just plain human nature we are all subjective and intolerant to a degree.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[Casurf1978 0]

I don't think it should be banned. Like it or not it's part of our nations history. Banning it would IMHO be like trying to forget our past. I'm against flying it on Federal and State buildings, but if someone wants to fly it on their property go for it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I don't think it should be banned. Like it or not it's part of our nations history. Banning it would IMHO be like trying to forget our past. I'm against flying it on Federal and State buildings, but if someone wants to fly it on their property go for it.

What if the people of a particular state (majority vote, or via a representative process, whatever - but a state you DON'T reside in) decide they want to fly it on the state capitol or a courthouse?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[flyingferret 0]

Go for it, states rights.....was a pretty big issue in the choice of a representative republic government type as I recall.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Go for it, states rights.....was a pretty big issue in the choice of a representative republic government type as I recall.

That's how I feel, I may disagree with their choices, but they have the right to make choices for themselves - especially wrong ones.

How else they gonna get all learned up?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

I am not for banning it.

But if people can’t see the difference between a religious symbol and a swastika it is a sad day for all of us.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I am not for banning it.

But I do believe we are all in agreement that public mockery is called for.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Casurf1978 0]

Good point. If States wanna fly it go for it, but on the Federal level no way.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Good point. If States wanna fly it go for it, but on the Federal level no way.

OK, next step - what if everybody votes and the majority of the US say fly it?

i'm just being escalatory, feel free to ignore the question

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

I am not for banning it.

But I do believe we are all in agreement that public mockery is called for.

yes yes it is.
Here is a question?

Does the flag also stand for being a badass you know it is the rebel flag?

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[flyingferret 0]

If that happened (it never would) then majority rules. Obvious caveats would be representative house of federal government vs popular majority.

Of course federally, it would never be supported because it is a symbol of succesion. But not supporting it is totally different than legislatively banning it.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What you describe with BASE jumping is called a loophole or semantics or legal vaguery

No it isn't. I specifically limited my discussion of same to Yosemite and NPS policy. Ask anyone who's been pinched at Yosemite or in other NPS land whether it is illegal. I'm sure a couple fo our posters have appeared before Judge Best or Judge Wunderlich for BASE jumping.

Quote

I suppose you could argue similar points about BSRs, USPA group membership, etc. and certain things that are in practicality ''illegal" due to risks incurred, etc. But in the legal sense of the term, they are by definition not illegal.

No, that's apples and oranges. I don't face criminal or administrative penalties for that. I would probably get grounded. Ask Derek what he thinks of the power of the USPA to monitor jumpers.

Quote

....if you think the state is actively involved with a state school, you may not have gone to one.

I went to a University of California. That counts. I know it firsthand.

Quote

But they are far from involved in the daily policy decisions

Much like the patrol cop is not involved with policy. But, if he fucks up, there are constitutioal arguments, aren't there? A public university chancellor or academic senate is no different from from any other governmental body.

Quote

simply to say that public universities make rules is far from saying the state government endorses them, at least until challenged.

If I work for the state as a prosecutor (even a lowly DA), and I commit misconduct, the people of the State of California lose, and a bad guy may go free. Yes, as a lowly prosecutor, I have that power. The government is presumed to ratify anything an underling does. Including a university.

Quote

can be fired by derogatory speech, because of the impact in a workplace.

Which is fine. Private standards, content-neutral restriction.

Quote

You could argue that my clothing was a symbol if you really wanted to I suppose, but seems like a reach.

Sure I could. There was a Supreme Court decision back in the 60's about a guy who wore a jacket. It said, "Fuck the Draft." Wearing a jacket? Usually not speech. Wearing a jacket that says, "Fuck the draft?" Yeah, that's speech.

Quote

Additionally, is burning a cross illegal?

In many places, you can be charged. Google "hate crime."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Ron 10]

Quote

dude who does this stuff insult?

Quote

Why would you want Malcom X's symbol?

Malcom X spoke on the violent revolt for equal rights.

"If you're not ready to die for it, put the word 'freedom' out of your vocabulary." -Malcom X

"You can’t separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom." "Prospects for Freedom in 1965," speech, Jan. 7 1965, New York City

"You don't have a peaceful revolution. You don't have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. There's no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. Revolution is bloody. Revolution is hostile. Revolution knows no compromise. Revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way."-Malcom X

Quote

Why would you want the little support our troops
ribbon?

Some hate the troops
http://www.forsakethetroops.net/mission.html

Quote

Why would someone put the USPA wings on their car?

A good number of pilots hate skydivers. They call us meat bombs....Or the old only two things fall from the sky line.

Quote

Why have a cross?

A Jew does not like the cross. Crosses were used to kill people.

Quote

Why have a Star of David?

Several groups don't like Jews...Skin heads find the Star of David insulting.

Some don't like the Confederate flag either...It does not make THIS symbol better or worse.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Casurf1978 0]

Highly unlikely that would ever happen, but if it did then what could you or I do. Hell people could vote to change the colors to black, white and grey. Which would make for a pretty damn ugly flag and it would be flown.