5 ms·
New "Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag" EO Would Violate First Amendment
- panny 1y ago[flagged]
- rkomorn 1y agoHe was convicted because he stole the banner and burned it. Just like anyone who steals and destroys someone else's property might be. Burning someone else's American flag would be a crime because it's someone else's flag. You don't get a first amendment right to burn other people's stuff.
- panny 1y ago[flagged]
- JohnFen 1y ago> if the US simply eminent domains all American flags That's not a thing.
- rkomorn 1y agoNo, that's just asinine BS.
- panny 1y ago[flagged]
- JohnFen 1y agoThat's an odd distortion of the case. Even in the article you link, it's clear that the ruling doesn't mean we cannot legally burn a foreign country's flag. The ruling was about someone wearing the Israeli flag being assaulted and the court determined that the involvement of the flag indicated that the assault was racially motivated.
- panny 1y ago[flagged]
- pcaharrier 1y agoThat case most certainly did not hold that "we cannot legally burn a foreign country's flag in the US." https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/05/finding-that-defendant-had-yanked-on-israeli-flag-plaintiff-had-tied-around-neck-choking-her-leads-to-3-yard-stay-away-order-against-defendant/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/05/finding-that-defendant-...
- rkomorn 1y agoI'm not sure how that's the conclusion you're coming to from reading that article. In your example, the Israeli flag was around someone else's neck, belong to that person, and was yanked on, and the case law establishes that attacking someone who has an Israeli flag can be considered the motivation that makes it a hate crime. And even if you read the paragraph that states > Mainen said the ruling was significant because it established case law equating attacks against the Star of David and Israeli flag with antisemitism. Case law is formed by judges writing opinions on individual cases that guide legal interpretations in future cases. Case law differs from legal precedents in that precedents are binding, meaning they are rulings that courts must adhere to, while case law serves as a guidepost. It still a- does not make it "illegal" and b- does not put it in a context where you decide to buy your own Israeli flag and burn it.
- ethagknight 1y agoThat’s actually what the article says is being addressed, just prioritizing action against the content neutral act. >> therefore cover desecration of a flag stolen from government property, or flag burning in a fire hazard zone on federal property.
- estearum 1y agoWhich is also not how Trump and his cronies are talking about the EO. The President "faking" chilling protected speech is exactly the same as chilling protected speech.
- FergusArgyll 1y agoThat's basically what this EO is. Prosecuting people who burn the flag for whatever other small crimes may have been related. Both are absolutely awful. You shouldn't defend that tyrannical ruling and I won't defend this.
- JohnFen 1y agoHe wasn't sentenced for burning a flag, he was sentenced for destroying stolen property. The first amendment doesn't enter into it. If he brought his own flag and burned that, there wouldn't have been a legal issue with it.
- panny 1y agoFive months for stealing a flag? There's another part of the constitution which says the punishment must fit the crime. We don't care about this part though, do we? Edit: since I'm "posting too fast" >has some value. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=black+lives+matter+flag https://www.amazon.com/s?k=black+lives+matter+flag It's a $20 flag, and we paid for his rent and meals for five months over it. He could have simply been court ordered to replace their flag, but instead we spent a mountain of tax money feeding and housing him. He won. And the 1A lost at the same time.
- JohnFen 1y agoStealing and destroying it, yes. The destroying is an important part. But, for the record, lots of people have done much longer sentences for stealing less.
- pcaharrier 1y ago"Theft in the second degree. — Any person convicted of theft in the second degree shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01 or imprisoned for not more than 180 days, or both, if the property obtained or used has some value." https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-3212 https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/22-32...
- jurking_hoff 1y ago[dead]
- perihelions 1y ago> "Five months for stealing a flag?" Serial offender who was convicted of theft in 2004, at the age of 20; convicted again of felony theft in 2012, at the age of 28 (for which he was sentenced to 30 months in prison); and convicted against in 2022, at the age of 40, for his violent role in attacking the US Capitol (for which he was sentenced to 22 years, and pardoned). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrique_Tarrio
- pcaharrier 1y ago>Finally, the Order contemplates deporting and otherwise denying immigration benefits to aliens who desecrate the flag, "under circumstances that permit the exercise of such remedies pursuant to Federal law." Whether deportation of aliens based on their speech is constitutional is unsettled. I wouldn't be the first person to note that this executive orders seems like it's a distraction tactic for something else, but this part makes me wonder if the distraction tactic is right there on the face of the thing. Perhaps there's an attempt here to give the administration another "tool in the box" for stepping up immigration enforcement actions.
- huvkste 1y ago[dead]
- IAmBroom 1y ago> Whether deportation of aliens based on their speech is constitutional is unsettled. Is it? That would suprise me. The First Amendment does not mention citizenship: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If free speech of aliens were not protected, neither would their practice of religion. "Americans can be Catholics, but we won't let any non-American Catholics in. We have enough of them."
- pcaharrier 1y ago> Is it? Yes: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-based-on-their-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/02/03/may-aliens-be-deported-... He's talking about the current state of the law on that point (i.e., deportation specifically).
- pcaharrier 1y agoI'm in good company in making this observation, it seems: https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/26/trumps-flag-burning-executive-order/ https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/26/trumps-flag-burning-exe.... "The executive order does not create any new bases for deporting a foreign national, but the order does potentially move flag burners to the front of the line in deportation cases."
- ethagknight 1y agoI’m interested in better understanding why some actions constitute speech, but other actions don’t. Setting aside the politics of the moment, Reading the text of the amendment, it seems like a real stretch to go from the text to “burning a flag is infringement of first amendment, but libel can be prosecuted without infringing. From the article, here is the justification: >> [anti flag burning policy] is a content-based, indeed viewpoint-based, enforcement policy.
- twoodfin 1y agoIt’s possible to commit crimes or civil infractions (fraud, for example) through speech without the speech itself being the criminal act. In the case of flag burning, unless the context is a general ban on burning anything, the content of the speech is what’s being banned, and that content is itself not criminal in any other way.
- nekochanwork 1y agoIt's a distraction to drown out Trump's involvement in the Epstein human trafficking investigation.
- y-curious 1y agoThe Epstein thing is the true bait, which I feel Americans are swallowing hook line and sinker. The real meat of the issue is nationalization of companies, militarization and trying to take over the Federal Reserve. Honestly, every president of the US has semi-directly killed thousands of people. I feel that whatever exposure he had to Epstein's island pales in comparison to, you know, operating the military industrial complex. Many people are also surprised that politicians lie and that the ultra rich do abhorrent stuff above the law. Seems like a new trend /s
- happytoexplain 1y agoNo no no, the real issue is getting everybody to disagree about what the realest issue is.
- ralferoo 1y agoI'm sure I remember reading last time this discussion came up that burning the flag is the only government approved way of disposing of a damaged US flag. Disclaimer: I'm from the UK, not USA, so I could well be wrong. EDIT: this article, which describes ceremonial flag burning ceremonies performed by veterans [1] contains a link to the flag code [2] of which section 8(k) states: The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. [1] https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/article/2206946/how-to-properly-dispose-of-worn-out-us-flags/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/story/article/2... [2] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title4/html/USCODE-2011-title4-chap1.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title4/html/...
- Palomides 1y agopointing this out as some kind of gotcha entirely misses the point
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- ralferoo 1y agoIt wasn't intended as "some kind of gotcha", it's an observation that the order trying to make burning the flag illegal is in direct contradiction with the government's own recommendation on the preferred method to dispose of a flag. Presumably the outcome is that one or the other will need to change.
- Palomides 1y agothe actual body of the order refers to acts of "desecration" without specifying their exact nature, so no, there isn't even that level of conflict
- delichon 1y agoBurning a flag for disposal rather than desecration does not violate the order. ...it covers desecration that violates "applicable, content-neutral laws, while causing harm unrelated to expression, consistent with the First Amendment." I think that this order is not content neutral, and should be considered dead on arrival. But it isn't a general order against any US flag burning.
- ryandvm 1y agoHonestly, just let him go nuts with Executive Orders. Legislatively, they are the Fisher Price steering wheel controls of government - they don't change the law in any way. He feels like he's doing something, his base is satiated with the conflict and hurtful intent, and they can just as easily be rolled back in 3 years. As long as he's not focused on passing actual laws (like the BBB), this is the best possible outcome of this administration. It's a bunch of performative bullshit that doesn't actually change anything.
- actionfromafar 1y agoYou assume the next administration will be any different than the Russian administrations have been after each election.