4 ms·

He 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 A

He 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 ago
  No, that's just asinine BS.
  - panny 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - JohnFen 1y ago
      That'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 ago
      That 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 ago
      I'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 ago
That’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 ago
  Which 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 ago
That'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.

panny 1y ago

[flagged]

JohnFen 1y ago
> if the US simply eminent domains all American flags That's not a thing.
rkomorn 1y ago
No, that's just asinine BS.
- panny 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - JohnFen 1y ago
    That'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 ago
    That 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 ago
    I'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 ago

That’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 ago
Which 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 ago

That'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.