3 ms·

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.