Trump Calls for Jailing Flag Burners

"Now, people will say, 'Oh, it's unconstitutional.' Those are stupid people," the former president said.

In reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech before Congress on Wednesday, raucous anti-Israel protests erupted across Washington, D.C. Protesters vandalized statues outside D.C.'s Union Station with phrases like "Hamas is comin" and "long live the resistance." At one point, protesters replaced the American flag with a Palestinian flag and then burned the American flag.

In response to the flag burning, former President Donald Trump told Fox and Friends on Wednesday that he believed those who burn or damage the American flag should face jail time. Trump also brushed off those who would point out that flag desecration is First Amendment-protected speech.

"You should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag," said Trump. "Now, people will say, 'Oh, it's unconstitutional.' Those are stupid people. Those are stupid people that say that."

"We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence," Trump continued. "When they're allowed to stomp on the flag and put lighter fluid on the flag and set it afire, when you're allowed to do that—you get a one-year jail sentence, and you'll never see it again."

This isn't the first time Trump has called for imprisoning flag burners. 

"We ought to come up with legislation that if you burn the American flag you go to jail for one year," Trump said during a 2020 rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. "We oughta do it. We talk about freedom of speech…but that's desecration," he added.

However, Trump is simply wrong. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning is protected speech. While you can still face property destruction-related charges for burning someone else's flag (as occurred Wednesday), burning a flag you own is protected political expression.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable," wrote Chief Justice William Brennan in the court's majority opinion. "We have not recognized an exception to this principle even where our flag has been involved."

While D.C.'s anti-Israel protestors can still face vandalism charges for their actions on Wednesday, every American has the right to burn their own American flag—no matter how offensive some presidential candidates think their actions are.

Comments

[sarcasmic]

However, Trump is simply wrong.

Them's fightin words round here, missy.

[Mother's Lament]

This is ironic coming from the guy who was dressed up in the flag for months after J6, grandstanding about destroying federal property, but when it's his brownshirt anti-Semites destroying federal property then it's okay.

Retarded hypocrite.

[sarcasmic]

Do you just make shit up and start arguing against it?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Yes. How else is he going to make his 50 cents?

[Mother's Lament]

"I'm not the paid shill, U R the paid shill"

And do you two retards honestly believe that the hundreds of comments featuring you two sperging out about J6 property damage disappeared, now that it's no longer a convenient narrative for you?

[Mother's Lament]

All you tards are paid shills.

[Mother's Lament]

Fuck off Buttplug, you greasy pedo, and stop socking.

[sarcasmic]

Imagine someone impersonating you in the Reason comments when you’re not around, saying shit that isn’t you, but getting people to believe it was you. Then these people start attacking you for things you never said. When the truth comes out, they don’t care because they’re too invested in hating the you that isn’t you.

Good times. Something you participated in and still defend. Something you are proud of. Something you brag about. Something where the truth doesn’t matter to you at all.

[Don't look at me!]

Poor sarc. Perpetual victim.

[Mother's Lament]

“Imagine someone impersonating you in the Reason comments when you’re not around, saying shit that isn’t you, but getting people to believe it was you.”

I can, you fucking hypocrite. You did it to me yourself for a week when it was discovered that other people could assume the same nick last year.
Unlike Buttplug you didn’t have the good sense not to make a different account to do it from though, and used your own so we all could instantly see it was you,

For being a troll and a bully, you sure like pretending to be a victim, Sarckles. But just look at you now pretending that butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, lying fuck.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Well, they disappeared for me the day the mute button became available. Maybe they're self-aware enough to assume that everyone muted them?

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Yep. Pepperidge Farms remembers, and so does everyone else.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

I can provide the receipts if you're going to lie about it.

[Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)]

And the Trump Cultists claim that he is no authoritarian.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.

[Ersatz]

Its Trumps version of the common man being outraged and saying
"There otta be a law!"

As is often advised - pay attention to what he does, not how he says stuff.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

pay attention to what he does, not how he says stuff.

Except when he does something stupid, then we are told to pay attention to what he said, not what he does, because what he said is what he *meant* to do.

[Mother's Lament]

Except when he does something stupid

Like what, Lying Jeffy? Flip through your ActBlue pdf and give us an actual example.

[One-Punch_Man]

I want to get rid of private health care
No more gas stoves
No more gas cars
No more red meat
You must accept pronouns
DEI is a must for everyone
I'm going to ignore the law for illegal immigrants
I'm going to ignore the Supreme Court for Student loans
You get who we chose for your candidate

Who's the authority again?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Obama?

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Sarc, trump is wrong about a lot of things, man (including this flag burning thing).

So are “the usual suspects” supposed to come threaten to kill now, or what?

[Fetterman's Hump]

"At one point, protesters replaced the American flag with a Palestinian flag and then burned the American flag."

The flag they burned was not their property, it was public property. That was a crime. If they want to burn a flag, they need to bring their own.

Trump's rhetoric is political speech, not a real proposal (i.e. it is political hyperbole) to make burning the US flag illegal.

[Zeb]

What bad thing happens if someone burns a flag? Even without the free speech point (which is correct), there's no direct harm I can see, so no crime. Limiting political expression is dumb even as a practical matter. Let them show their true colors. Punishing the expression isn't going to change the ideas in people's heads.

[A Thinking Mind]

I wouldn't mind it if we occasionally threw people in jail for vandalism, though. There's definitely a distinction to be made between buying an American flag and the burning it in effigy, and pulling down an American flag at a landmark to burn.

I don't expect Trump to actually articulate that distinction, but we're seeing a trend of protests like this. They turn to vandalism, at least hundreds of people participate in the vandalism, and there's like 2 people who face sentences.

[Zeb]

Yeah, stealing a flag and destroying it is definitely a crime.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Buy your own if you are going to burn it.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Bidens DoJ charged a proud boy with hate crimes for pulling down a pride flag and burning it.

Jeff and sarc won't care though. Words worse than acts and all.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

"Pulling down" suggests it wasn't his pride flag he burned.

[Beezard]

So theft is the hate crime?

And many of these protests have involved vandalism with pretty much zero consequences and/or lefty politicians bailing out the vandals.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I'm opposed to thought crimes and destruction of others' private property.

If you're saying non-thought crime laws should be enforced impartially, I agree with you.

[javier_milei_biscuit]

Well yeah, the article clearly states that the protestors "can still face vandalism charges for their actions on Wednesday."

[Riva]

If we’re talking about the Hamas supporting morons in DC, it wasn’t their flag they burned. They destroyed federal property. The little shits should be on trial.

[mad.casual]

What bad thing happens if someone burns a flag?

JFC Really? If someone were to throw a flag or pretty much anything at you (or even just clumsily hand it to you) in public, would you prefer they set it on fire first?

Moreover, FFS, I used to douse matches in gasoline as a kid. My friends and I used to have bottle rocket fights. In the spring we'd burn weeds out of the fence rows. Even as hazardous and irresponsible and care free about open flame as we were, we understood how doing that shit in a crowd of people was exponentially more dangerous than doing it out somewhere where everyone could run in opposite directions without running into anyone.

“Yelling fire in a crowded theater, setting a fire in a crowded theater… speech is speech.” – Zeb

[Zeb]

JFC, dude, I know you are capable of making distinctions better than that. And I would think you know my style well enough at this point to know that when I talk about burning a flag I am talking about burning a flag, not all the other things one might do with a flag that is burning or every circumstance under which a flag might be burned. I'm talking about the general case, not this specific incident. Making laws in reaction to a specific incident is not a good way to go about it. Of course burning a flag might in some cases constitute a criminal act.
None of what you say pertains specifically and exclusively to burning a flag. Throwing flaming stuff at people or creating a dangerous situation by starting a fire in the middle of a crowd are crimes on their own, whatever is being burned.

[mad.casual]

Throwing flaming stuff at people or creating a dangerous situation by starting a fire in the middle of a crowd are crimes on their own, whatever is being burned.

Right. The flag is moot. This isn’t/wouldn’t be infringing on anyone’s rights because it’s not free speech or peaceable assembly. You’re trying to fit a roundly criminal act into a free speech and peaceable assembly square hole.

It’s the same idea that arresting and jailing people for celebratory gun fire isn’t a violation of their 2A rights. The same idea that robbing a bunch of people in public and then saying “Oh, it was just a magic act.” doesn’t fly. The same idea that charging (some of the) Jan. 6th protesters for trespassing and/or vandalizing public property isn’t out of line.

Someone burning their own flag on their property? Sure. Someone burning a flag by themselves in public or in a fire pit at a national park or whatever? Great.
A crowd of people burning someone in effigy and an American flag in the process? You have to be an exceedingly naive, bordering on dishonest, libertarian to presume people couldn’t possibly perceive that as a threat or, at least, a misappropriate of property. Especially given that we’ve got people in jail for doing burnouts on public crosswalks… by themselves… in the middle of the night… explicitly as an expressive act.

There are certainly edge cases where burning *THE* flag as such is, or could be, a gray area and any charge chilling of free speech or excessively punitive. This is not that case.

[Zeb]

No, I am not doing any of that. I'm talking about flag burning and whether it should be a crime in and of itself.
I think I might see why you got me wrong. When I say "let them show their true colors" I did not mean "tolerate dangerous behavior in public". I hope that helps.

[mad.casual]

When I say “let them show their true colors” I did not mean “tolerate dangerous behavior in public”.

Why would you presume the two are mutually exclusive? Even without the explicit animus in this specific instance or more generally in similar protests, this seems like a patently absurd assumption.

[Zeb]

I'm not presuming anything. If they are committing legit crimes, then they deserve to be punished. I'm just talking about the specific topic of making it a crime to burn a flag. Jailing flag burners who also committed actual crimes that harm or endanger others is fine. Jailing flag burners for the specific offense of burning a flag is not.

[Quicktown Brix]

Wow. You read very different meaning into Zeb's post than I did.

[Zeb]

I don't know what he thought I was saying. Seems like maybe he thought I said that burning a flag excuses other behavior and is somehow OK do do anytime, anywhere. Which of course is not what I said in the least.

[mad.casual]

It’s BOAF SIDEZ equivocating.

As below:
Right: Burnout, public street, alone in the middle of the night or on a scooter on a public walkway.
Left: Mob chanting and shouting and lighting things on fire… in solidarity with a terrorist group… over a war the group started.

If I do a burnout in front of your house, it may be annoying, but you don’t think your life is in danger (as long as the vehicle isn’t pointed at the house). If I and 50 of my friends light something on fire in front of your house (or start doing donuts and burnouts), yeah, you could be legitimately concerned for your safety.

But, again, as below, you pretend like one guy in a pickup truck or a handful of kids on scooters is the equivalent to a crowd several dozen, if not hundreds of, people.

It’s the same “mostly peaceful” bullshit this magazine has been handing us since 2020.

[Zeb]

I am not making any comment on a particular incident here.

[Nardz]

https://x.com/ConquestTheory/status/1816859578081890463?t=JJnMDOY6eTvl4ommSUD-fw&s=19

Three Washington teens are facing TEN YEARS in jail after making skid marks on LGBT rainbow road mural while riding e-scooters

BREAKING: Charges have been dropped against four people, including a 15-year-old, who were arrested for assaulting police officers during yesterday's riot, according to a DC law enforcement source.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Coincidentally, Spokane’s mayor is a lifelong Marxist. And 5 out of 7 city council members are either the same or at least alt left globalist progressives.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

You have got to de-escalate your own rage, mate. You are firing on (formerly) friendly targets.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

If 18-year-olds can be charged with felonies for putting tire marks on the left's sacred rainbow flag religious symbol, then anti-American leftists can be charged with burning the nation's flag.

When the left stops doing the former, the latter can be ended as well.

[Quicktown Brix]

And this is how we got where we are.

[Social Justice is neither]

No shit for brains, refusing to hold the marxist scum to their own rules is how things escalated to where they are today.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

And their rules are, "Toleration of movements from the left, and intoleration of movements from the right." The double standard is the point, and needs to be given back to them, 100x over or however hard it takes to get them to back down.

[Quicktown Brix]

I see you put your practice of escalate instead of de-escalate in many situations. Good luck with that.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

When has the left ever de-escalated when they weren't forced to do so?

[Zeb]

So, fuck the constitution and just do whatever leftist assholes are doing? No thanks. Sometimes it's reasonable to stoop to their level, but when it comes to basic rights, no way. We're supposed to be the ones who believe people have inalienable rights, no?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

So, fuck the constitution and just do whatever leftist assholes are doing? No thanks.

If the left are already saying "fuck the constitution," acting like it isn't a dead letter at this point where the left is in charge (look at the guy in New York who got shafted by that judge who said "the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist in my courtroom") is simply kabuki theater at this point.

These people don't understand anything except force. The only time they back down and go along is when their own repressive tolerance is shoved back down their throat with no quarter.

[Square = Circle]

Individuals should be held accountable for their actions. Once you're attacking perceived enemies whom you've decided can be held accountable for other people's actions, you become the very thing you're railing against.

[Nardz]

Lol
Reading yall is hilarious.
Unbelievable levels of denial.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Individuals should be held accountable for their actions.

This is an ideal that doesn’t hold up in a society where double standards are gleefully exercised against anyone who isn’t part of the left.

The ONLY reason some of the pro-Palestine protestors are facing particular consequences for their activism is because they pissed off influential megabucks businessmen who happened to vote and donate to Democrats. If they were protesting a specifically Republican issue, they wouldn’t have to worry about demanding amnesty from the universities. It would be freely given.

[Square = Circle]

Still doesn't justify punishing people for things they didn't do.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

But they're not people, they're vermin, you see...

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

YOU are vermin.

[DesigNate]

Except Red Rocks never said to punish them for something they didn’t do, and quite clearly advocated for punishing them for what they do the same as other people on the opposite end are being punished….

[mad.casual]

We’re supposed to be the ones who believe people have inalienable rights, no?

Maybe you haven't tuned in to reality in the last 50 yrs. Zeb, but the people chanting allahu akbar and setting things on fire in large groups in front of political centers of power aren't real big on any part of your Western social nuance. You do know they're supporting a terrorist organization, right?

This isn't them demonstratively respecting The Constitution. This is a threat.

I mean, if 100 members of the Azov Division starts setting a pile of library books written by Russian Jews on fire in front of the WH in order to get more funding for Ukraine is that peaceable assembly and free speech too?

[Zeb]

Of course they don't respect the constitution. We should, though. Otherwise, what the fuck are we trying to defend?
And once again, I never made any excuse for the people at this particular protest (or any). There are legitimate reasons to ban starting fires in public places. No one is questioning that here.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

"starting fires in public places"

Let's be clear: lighting a flag or a pile of books sitting on pavement is very different from igniting part of a structure. Once the fire becomes a threat to people or property then the action becomes assault and arson.

[ravenshrike]

Plastic fumes are significantly more toxic than paper, and since these fuckers are cleaning up the residue burnt into the pavement they're also vandalizing the road.

[ravenshrike]

That should read "aren't"

[ME2R]

just a point, I couldn’t take a bag of garbage, or anything else and set it on fire in the street of my residential neighborhood, or any other public place. Irrespective of the symbolism, when did setting crap on fire become legal?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

There you go again, letting other people decide your ethics...

[Eeyore]

Violations of clean air regulations. This is a red flag day, so no burning. You trying to cause children to develop asthma?

[Social Justice is neither]

If the marxist leftists are going to jail people for desecrating Pride flags then this is fine. Fuck those hypocritical twats, demanding rules for others they refuse to abide by themselves.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

I saw more outrage over the assaults, vandalism, and other actions. Very few talking about the flag burning. People were outraged by protestors taking down the American flag to fly the Palestinian flag though.

The cops already released the minimal arrests. Yet we still have J6 people awaiting trial.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump may be "very few" people, but he's the subject of the article, which is about Trump calling for 1 year in jail for flag burning.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

It’s not a great idea, and not going to go anywhere. But Reason devotes energy to nonsense like this instead of covering the abuses of J6 protestors persecuted by you and your democrat friends.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Like it never happened...

[CLM1227]

Morale used to be a thing. A battle would usually end immediately if the flag was replaced with an enemy flag.

I don’t understand how we have divorced ourselves from this use of flags.

Sure, if you bought a flag at Walmart and are burning it, fine… political statement. But to remove a displayed flag and replace it with a foreign flag has other implications that aren’t free speech.

[Rick James]

Trump is just showing his true rainbow colors.

[Overt]

Trump is wrong. However, there is nothing unconstitutional about a law that would put those asshats in jail for a year. Buy a flag and burn it, sure. But if in the act of protesting you choose to steal federal property, and destroy it for your political purposes, that certainly could cary a serious sentence. And that sentence could be extra harsh if it is a federally raised flag of the US.

These asshats may have been engaged in protesting for their corrupt shit-stains of faux-nations. But they were also engaged in larceny and vandalism, and the first amendment does not protect that.

[Mother's Lament]

Trump is wrong.

Yes.

He's channeling the Amendment-to-be:

"There's a lot of flag-burners who have got too much freedom, and I want to make it legal for policeman to beat them 'cause there's limits to our liberty, least I hope and pray that there are, because those liberal freaks go to far.

Buy a flag and burn it, sure. But if in the act of protesting you choose to steal federal property, and destroy it for your political purposes, that certainly could carry a serious sentence.

I'm not sure about serious, but there should definitely be a hefty fine or community service, so yes.

[Quicktown Brix]

Best..schoolhouse...rock...ever

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Apparently stealing a flag and setting it on fire can be worth quite a hefty sentence: https://reason.com/2019/12/20/a-15-year-sentence-for-burning-a-stolen-gay-pride-flag-is-not-justice/

[Mother's Lament]

I'm sure Lying Jeffy has a billion reasons as to why that is (D)ifferent.

KKKemjeff, you want to fill us in?

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

But if in the act of protesting you choose to steal federal property, and destroy it for your political purposes, that certainly could cary a serious sentence. And that sentence could be extra harsh if it is a federally raised flag of the US.

I believe there already is. I recall an article, and I thought it was here, a while back, about someone who had taken down an American flag at some federal property and burned it, and gotten 20 years. The line I recall from it (but cannot find from a web search) was along the lines of "he got the same sentence as if he'd burned down the building itself.

So I suspect there already are laws on the books that could be used to absolutely hammer those asshats flat.

[Square = Circle]

I believe there already is.

There is. Destruction of public property carries a jail sentence. But Trump isn't saying they should be held accountable for the actual law that they broke, he wants a new law that he acknowledges he already knows is unconstitutional.

[One-Punch_Man]

What about just replacing the US flag with pride, HAMAs, or whatever?

Again, this just shows a problem with illegal immigration. I'm not saying all, but most don't have respect or ties to the country.

The ones that go through legal immigration, it's such a process and challenge, they do it because they want to be a part here. I know Shrike and Jeff will pull some extreme examples of why illegals are good but still

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

So we treat them like J6 detainees and lock them up without trials for years.

[Rossami]

I liked Louisiana’s answer to flag burning. If I remember it correctly, they passed a law setting the maximum penalty for beating a flag-burner with a baseball bat (yes, they specified a baseball bat) at $1. The law was overturned on procedural grounds (again, if I remember correctly, they gutted an existing bill to stuff that topic in, violating LA’s one topic per law rule) but it was a very creative approach to the problem.

Apologies in advance for any details I got wrong. It was more than a couple years ago - late 80's or early 90's maybe.

[SRG2]

So you apparently approve of inflicting serious bodily harm on someone exercising their 1A rights.

[Rossami]

No, I just thought it was a creative way to craft a law that doesn't infringe on the First Amendment.

[Square = Circle]

I'm sure it would never occur to Democrats that they could pass a similar law for beating "fascists" with baseball bats.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

They don't even get charged a dollar. More often than not released with probation. So already kind of exists.

The rioters yesterday who assaulted the police were already released without charges.

[BYODB]

It's especially stupid to set the punishment for real crimes like assault absurdly low as 'revenge' for performative 'crimes' that are at best petty vandalism.

Oh no, you ruined my ten dollar flag. Time to put you in the hospital? That seems crazy to me.

If they violate, say, a no trespassing sign perhaps...but that's almost entirely a separate type of thing and even then it's way out of proportion to the original act.

[Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

The democrat party has no right to exist.

[SMP0328]

However, Trump is simply wrong. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning is protected speech. While you can still face property destruction-related charges for burning someone else's flag (as occurred Wednesday), burning a flag you own is protected political expression.

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that there was a right to abortion. During his first/only term in office, Trump appointed Justices who would vote to overrule that decision (resulting in Dobbs). He may be signaling that in a second term he will appoint Justices who will vote to overrule Texas v. Johnson.

[Zeb]

I hope not. The conservatives are a lot better on 1A stuff at this point and I don't want to see that change.

[Mickey Rat]

The justices he has appointed do not seem to agree with the Left that free speech is a danger to Our Democracy! and must be suppressed.

[Mr. JD]

That's not simply a lazy take. It's a willfully dishonest one.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Sarcasm?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, assuming he's not a moron, I think that's probably what he was suggesting. He is now convinced that any Supreme Court justice he appoints in the future will be as loyal as the ones he has appointed in the past.

He's probably right.

[Mickey Rat]

In this case, the protesters took down publically owned flags and burned them. That should not get free speech protections and a jail sentence should be appropriate for that type of vandalism.

And since charging teenagers with hate crime felonies for scuffing a n insectional Pride flag painted on a crosswalk,it's not quite apparent that such charges are unconstitutional, at least to our current government leadership.

[Square = Circle]

And since charging teenagers with hate crime felonies for scuffing a n insectional Pride flag painted on a crosswalk,it’s not quite apparent that such charges are unconstitutional, at least to our current government leadership.

Which is why the "flag burning" thing is a bit of a red herring, and kind of a dumb thing to focus on on Trump's part.

Prosecuting vandalism of the Pride flags was done under the auspices of laws against vandalizing public property, which also apply here. Whether it's a Pride flag, the US flag, or a Confederate flag is immaterial.

The smarter tack, politically, would be to point out that laws are being enforced unequally based on the symbolic rather than material nature of the acts - i.e. we punish those who vandalize Pride flags on public property but not the US flag on public property, a content-based distinction that absolutely does violate the 1A.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Yeah Trump actually can make a case here but articulates it very poorly as is his habit. On the other hand the news cycle is limited to sound bites and if Trump speaks more than three sentences the fact checkers will grab three words and create a whole new shiny object.

[Square = Circle]

On the other hand the news cycle is limited to sound bites and if Trump speaks more than three sentences the fact checkers will grab three words and create a whole new shiny object

True, that, and I wouldn't be surprised if what he actually means is more like "these people are assholes and I think they should be punished," details to be worked out later.

[JSinAZ]

“… I wouldn’t be surprised if what he actually means …”

I think this is correct, and I’ve often thought exactly this about most of his comments that result so much media panty-bunching.

[Mickey Rat]

Except what that a felony were the hate crime charges.

[Square = Circle]

Which are also facially unconstitutional.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Most. Libertarian. President. Ever.

[Mother's Lament]

Sad, isn’t it.

That even with wanting to lock-up flag-burners he’s the most libertarian.

But like with Sarckles above, I still think any criticism coming from you is ironic as for months after J6 you were grandstanding about destroying federal property and locking the protesters up forever.
When it’s your brownshirt anti-Semites destroying federal property though, then it’s all okay.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

That even with wanting to lock-up flag-burners he’s the most libertarian.

Unlike, say, Chase Oliver, who is clearly not libertarian enough because he's gay.

destroying federal property and locking the protesters up forever.

strawman, as always - no one here advocated locking the protesters up forever.

When it’s your brownshirt anti-Semites destroying federal property though, then it’s all okay.

confession via projection - it's actually ML and his crew who are totally okay with his MAGA cultists destroying federal property, witness their attempts to whitewash Jan. 6 criminals as "tourists" and "hostages", and still to this day, insist that it was staged by Antifa and the FBI.

[sarcasmic]

Unlike, say, Chase Oliver, who is clearly not libertarian enough because he’s gay.

They don’t hate him because he’s gay. They hate him because he’s a Democrat. How do they know he’s a Democrat? He’s gay.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

The only acceptable gay man is one who's in the closet. Otherwise, they are too 'flamboyant' by just breathing air, and they want to force their 'homosexual agenda' down everyone's throats.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Are you two feeling lost this week? Kinda directionless and without purpose? And just kinda flinging stuff out?

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

He's broken up about his ally Kris Tyson being publicly outed as a pedophile (although KiwiFarms had noted his deviance long before it went live).

[Mother's Lament]

I honestly thought that the ATV driver who was killing Trump supporters would turn out to be one of those two little monsters and I'd have to plan a trip to go piss on the grave.

[Mother's Lament]

Unlike, say, Chase Oliver, who is clearly not libertarian enough because he’s gay.

Literally nobody here claimed that it was Chase's homosexuality rather than his Covid authoritarianism that was the problem, but that won't stop Lying Jeffy and his pet drunk Strawcasmic from making those smears.

Meanwhile, there's hundreds of J6 posts by you two lying fucks screaming about broken windows, imaginary shit smears and feet on desks, that you can't erase.

[sarcasmic]

Oh look. Jesse Jr is bragging about his archive of bookmarked comments. You're quite the stalker.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

Reading old posts doesn't require bookmarks.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Look, sarc gets angry his pathological lies are saved to prove he is a pathalogical liar.

[Mother's Lament]

“Oh look. Jesse Jr is bragging about his archive of bookmarked comments. You’re quite the stalker.”

It’s quite the racket old Sarckles has going on here.

He runs around demanding citations of the shitty things he knows he said but is now pretending he didn’t, and when you give him one of the cites, he squeals “STALKER!!!”

He’s such a piece of shit.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

I'm not sure he rises to the level of "shit".

[DesigNate]

You don’t get to run around saying that everyone lies about what you said, telling them to prove it and shit and then call them creepy and stalkers because they bookmark your posts to throw back in your face.

Fuck it, I’m out.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

They know that. But they have no other intelligent arguments to make.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

So since I didn't vote for Jorgensen or Gary Johnson, does that mean they are gay?

[Mother's Lament]

They’re gonna have to be, even if Sarc has to sodomize them himself.

[Azathoth!!]

Chase Oliver isn’t libertarian. At all. Never has been, never will be.

He’s the left’s installed ‘nominee’. Which you, as a leftist yourself, support.

And you will throw every single libertarian under the bus as a homophobe because you think it will hide your leftist treachery.

It doesn’t.

“Forever” is hyperbole. As you know. You supported J6 protesters being locked up for simple trespass. As your posts prove. I bet you’re parroting the ‘Harris was never border czar’ semantic assholery too.

Oh, and look, you condemn the J6 political prisoners AGAIN in your attempt to rationalize leftist terrorism.

You lie even within your own lies.

[sarcasmic]

You lie even within your own lies.

Not quite sure what you're talking about. I assume it's one of those things where whenever I say something that conflicts with what you and others say about me, that I must be the liar. Reminds me of middle school. Grow the fuck up.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

An example of you lying about your statements in under 24 hours.

https://reason.com/2023/11/06/blinkens-mission-impossible/?comments=true#comment-10306317

I have 8 of these saved. And thats a tiny minority lol.

[Mother's Lament]

“Not quite sure what you’re talking about.”

Ha ha, the fuck you aren’t, you dishonest shithead.

[I, Woodchipper]

lol i guess i better just vote for the bolshevik side who puts you in jail for leaving skidmarks on a rainbow crosswalk.

[SRG2]

Can you at least have the guts to show that you disagree with Trump here? Or is that just too difficult for you?

[I, Woodchipper]

but that's not the point isnt it

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Can you at least have the guts to resist the left's repressive tolerance? Or is that just too difficult for you?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Fuck you. Almost every left wing retard upset about Trump's urge to ban US flag burning would eagerly prosecute someone who burns a rainbow flag, or "desecrates" a rainbow cross walk.

[Ben of Houston]

Look. We are not here for performative agreement. We are talking about one heated discussion that Trump had compared to actually prosecuting people for hate crimes for disrespect of a rainbow flag painted on the ground.

If we are forced to make a choice, I will go for the man who can be countered or reasoned with versus the people who in cold blood decided that prosecuting people for hate crimes against a symbol was correct.

Additionally, let's not forget that this discussion was explicitly about a stolen American Flag. That, at the very least, is vandalism and destruction of public property. Actual crimes that exist.

[sarcasmic]

Or you can reject the duopoly and support someone other than a Republican or Democrat.

[Azathoth!!]

This isn't a party topic pull your head out of you ass for a second or two and wipe the shit from your eyes.

Leftists --all of you, in every party or faction, support prosecuting those who 'desecrate' your flags, your monuments, your colors --and scream bloody murder when anyone even suggests stopping you from 'desecrating' theirs.

[sarcasmic]

Oh look. Another Jesse Jr trouncing arguments I never made. I hope you wanted to be just like him when you grew up, because here you are. All grown up. And just like Jesse.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

I'm so proud to be number one on your list buddy.

[Mother's Lament]

"Another Jesse Jr trouncing arguments I never made."

Pretty sure we can find a quote of you making exactly those arguments.

[sarcasmic]

We... Go ahead creepy stalker and creepy stalker team. Find a quote. Post the link. Make sure it's in full context. And if it's too over-the-top to be serious, assume it isn't.

GO!

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

You made the bald assertion. Why don't you back it up?

The fact is I have dozens of your posts defending the left, institutions and talking about the good intentions.

I can pull up most articles critical of democrats and will find posts of you attacking the right instead.

Youre a leftist sarc.

[Mother's Lament]

Go ahead creepy stalker and creepy stalker team.

“Prove I’m lying… but if you prove I’m lying by posting what I said then U R a sTaLkeR”

It doesn’t work that way, you idiot drunken troll.

[Ra's al Gore]

Equal punishment for burning all flags, pride or US. Jail or no charges for either. Equal treatment.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

But this is a lazy false equivalence. One is about criminalizing a type of speech that protests the government. The other is about criminalizing a type of speech that protests other people.

I'm not saying either one should be criminalized, just that they ought to be defended or not based on their own merits.

[Nobartium]

The pride flag is unequivocally a government flag now.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

No, it isn't.

[Nobartium]

Close your eyes to the obvious if you want, it will not change the de facto.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

If you're getting charged by the government for defacing it or burning it, it most certainly is.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

You fucking retard. Do you think we forgot all the instances of government facilities flying rainbow flags? And all the flags shown at official events and campaign stops?

[A Thinking Mind]

The pride flag is absolutely a political symbol. People use it to make political statements with, and there's a lot of political agenda and laws being pushed in the name of LGBT. If you think burning it is equivalent to saying gay people shouldn't exist, you must think burning an American flag is equivalent to saying Americans shouldn't exist.

You don't to get use it as a sword and a shield.

[sarcasmic]

People use it to make political statements

People use lots of things to make political statements. Doesn't make the object itself political.

[A Thinking Mind]

People burned Nikes when Nike got political. They're still fucking shoes, but burning them was political speech. Dumping out your Budweisers in response to Anheuser Busch playing politics is also political speech, even though it's still just beer.

Pride flags are no different. If they can be used to push a political agenda, they can be burned in defiance of that political agenda.

[sarcasmic]

It only works if people react. If you refuse to care then you take their power away. To me a shoe is a shoe. A flag is a flag. Beer is beer. Unless it’s Bud Light. That shit was an abomination way before that stupid advertisement with that stupid tranny.

It's only political if you let it be.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

It’s only political if you let it be.

If the left is forcing it as a political issue, then it's political and an equally repressive response is required to their politicization.

[sarcasmic]

That's a race to the lowest common denominator, which is tyranny.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Some people like to claim that as a means to shut down the other side. Which is also tyranny.

[sarcasmic]

Don't make the mistake of judging what. You're supposed to judge who, and then judge the what. If they do it it's tyranny. If your team does it it's righteous retribution.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

I didn't make the rules.

[sarcasmic]

Who enforces the rules? Looks like you’re using an appeal to authority to justify being an ass. You're smarter than that.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Who enforces the rules? Looks like you’re using an appeal to authority to justify being an ass. You’re smarter than that.

Mutually assured destruction kept the US and Soviet Union from nuking each other for decades. It's still the cornerstone of our national deterrence strategy.

National politics shouldn't be any different.

[sarcasmic]

Dude... No. You're asking for tyranny that's not tyranny when you're in charge, but is when they are in charge. And then hoping you're in charge. But you're building the tyranny machine. We need to dismantle the tyranny machine. Make no one in charge of a nothing.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

We need to dismantle the tyranny machine.

Sounds great. Let me know how the left is going to go along with that.

[sarcasmic]

Sounds great. Let me know how the left is going to go along with that.

Tell me how the right is going to go along with that. No you! No you! You first! No you first! I'm like not doing that! It's so wrong! But you did it first so it's ok! Ew! Creep! I'm doing it now because you did it first! OMG that's so fucking wrong! I'm doing it now because you did it first.

As long as there are no limits, rape is ok, because they did it first.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Youre a fucking idiot sarc.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

So say we all.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

You don’t to get use it as a sword and a shield.

Sure I can, because it has no fixed meaning. Some people wave Pride flags as a political statement. Some people wave Pride flags to just express their identity. Some people wave Pride flags to express their solidarity with the LGBTQ community. Some people burn Pride flags because they object to the 'homosexual agenda' (whatever that is). And some people burn Pride flags because they really don't think gays should exist at all.

Think of the Christian cross as a symbol. The Christian cross on a church, has a much different meaning than a Christian cross that is on fire outside of someone's house.

[sarcasmic]

Some people burn Pride flags because they object to the ‘homosexual agenda’ (whatever that is).

From what I’ve gathered from the comments, all homos are pedophiles, and their agenda revolves around grooming children. That’s why gays want gay books in school libraries, gay drag shows, as well as transition surgery for children. I’ve also read that Chase Oliver wants all those things because he's gay.

[LIBtranslator]

Like John Hospers? The Libertarian Presidential candidate who finagled an electoral vote, got the Suprema Corte to adopt the LP plank in Roe v Wade, and demanded a strong defense against incoming communist nuclear missile attacks? Now that you mention it, Chase Oliver does have something in common with John Hospers besides the smile. He’s three orders of magnitude better than any of the looter candidates the Kleptocracy is fielding.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

I remember him.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

More sarc lies. Bookmarked.

[Mother's Lament]

"From what I’ve gathered from the comments"

Well, then you must have an example you can share. Sure you were constantly lying before but you're being honest now, right?
Here's your chance to prove it.

[sarcasmic]

I'm not a creepy stalker with thousands of organized bookmarks of Reason comments.

[Mother's Lament]

You are a creepy stalker, according to the shit you said your ex-wife and daughter have accused you of. And you don't need bookmarks because there's nobody here who lies about what they said in the past quite as much as you.

But I wasn't asking for a cite. I was asking for names and examples, but you can't even do that because you were, as always, making shit up.

[A Thinking Mind]

Some people wave Pride flags as a political statement.

And some people burn pride flags as a political statement. If you can use it to express a political point or to drive home your desire to regulate every bathroom into being unisex, then burning it is can be simply attacking that political preference.

Crosses have been around for a long time, and they’ve actually been burned for a long time, but the act of burning a cross became attached to a particularly unsavory political movement, so nobody wants to be associated with that idea anymore. People DO still burn Bibles, though, and it’s the not same as them wanting to burn Christians.

This idea that there’s something substantially different between burning a Pride Flag and burning an American Flag is entirely an invention in your own head.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

And some people burn pride flags as a political statement. If you can use it to express a political point or to drive home your desire to regulate every bathroom into being unisex, then burning it is can be simply attacking that political preference.

Sure – protesting a political statement that is being made by other people. Unlike burning the American flag, which is about protesting an action by the government.

You're back to "all cross burnings are equivalent", the cross burning down on a church hit by lightning is the same as the cross burning on the front yard of someone's house.

[Zeb]

Very few people gave a shit about pride flags until governments started taking sides in this very hot political issue.

[Mother's Lament]

When there are police manhunts for people burning American flags, like there are when someone leaves tire tracks on one of Jeff's alphabet sex cult flags painted on the road, then I'll acknowledge his position.

[BYODB]

It seems some people want to create a strawman for the people burning pride flags but don't notice that it's made of straw. I mean, they also do that with burning the American flag it's just a different strawman.

I believe it was the left that coined the term 'the personal is political' so once sexuality became a political issue it seems appropriate that one should be allowed to burn the pride flag for any reason, including that gay people shouldn't exist.

After all, the reason they burned the American flag is because they don't think America should exist, or should only be allowed to exist as a Muslim theocracy where anyone who doesn't convert gets the sword.

The failure to notice that both strawman are in opposition to one another but both convey essentially the same political message, that being death to the unbelievers, is particularly retarded.

The most retarded thing of all? That people don't seem to register why the American flag was burned in this particular case. They gloss right over what the speech actually says. Wonder why that might be?

[TrickyVic (old school)]

""Think of the Christian cross as a symbol.""

Why not a Christian flag? Apples to apples.
I think a certain SCOTUS justice is catching heat for merely displaying one.

[Mother's Lament]

The hypocrisy of it all is the feature, not a byproduct.

[LIBtranslator]

Like Luther the Jew-hater said: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father--Matthew 10:34-36. Christian National Socialists took him at his word.

[Mother's Lament]

Martin Luther didn't say that, you ignorant moron. A Jew named Jesus of Nazareth 1400 years before Luther did.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

” One is about criminalizing a type of speech that protests the government. The other is about criminalizing a type of speech that protests other people.”

I wonder if burning the US flag is ever about protesting Americans, i.e. other people? Does it become a crime then or no, jeff?

[Zeb]

The first amendment says nothing about the content or target of speech. That is a meaningless distinction.

[TrickyVic (old school)]

Not for the identity politics crowd

[CE]

If the flag is your own personal property, you should be free to burn it if you want (if you do so safely so as not to risk burning stuff down.)

If the flag belongs to the government or to another person, burning it should be considered a crime, destruction of property or vandalism.

As Jefferson might have said, burning a flag "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

[Nobartium]

I'll go on record and say that I support excising flag burning from the first amendment (via another amendment).

[SMP0328]

My problem with the text of the Flag Desecration Amendment is that it leaves to Congress and/or the Supreme Court to decide what constitutes a flag and when it should be considered to have been desecrated. So, we would be trusting some part of the federal government to make these determinations after the proposal was added to the Constitution. I want to know what I'm signing before I sign it.

[LIBtranslator]

Picky picky picky. Germans have banned the Christian flag they once wrapped themselves in. The thing CAN be done. There used to be scofflaws swearing Congress'd NEVER prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes. When the True Christians™ explained afterward that "intoxicating" meant one jigger of booze in a gallon of water, people laughed all the way to the Hooverville.

[Mother's Lament]

The Nazis were neopagan goat humpers like you, Hank. They banned Christmas and attacked churches. Your swastika represented the solar wheel, not a cross, you mendacious old fool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenkampf

[Incunabulum]

What makes you think you would get to sign it?

Our betters will make those decisions.

[Incunabulum]

That's not how rights work.

1. Rights don't come from the Constitution.

2. That's it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're also on record as not being a libertarian, I hope...

[CE]

Meanwhile, the FBI's investigation of the incompetence (or worse) of the Secret Service is focused on.... whether the bullet wound in Trump's ear was caused by a bullet, or shards of something that may have struck him after popping sounds were heard at his rally....

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bullet-shard-of-glass-welcome-to-donald-trumps-ear-wound-theater

[Jerry B.]

Why does it even matter? Do they think the assassin was trying to just wound Trump with fragments?

[Mr. JD]

Flag-burners have been legally prosecuted in America for some time now, under the auspices of Democrats.

Trump is suggesting that these prosecutions ought to extend to all flags, not just the rainbow flag.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes, that's why he said, "You should get a one-year jail sentence if you do anything to desecrate the American flag".

Because he really meant all flags.

[Dillinger]

yes yes, T is awful. everyone will be in jail just like 2016-2020

stop. hanging. out. with. Binion.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

Pretty sure congress isn't gonna pass this and SCOTUS would shoot it down anyhow.
Dumb move.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Why would SCOTUS shoot it down? If Trump wants it, he gets it...

[DesigNate]

I see you’ve decided to go full retard.

[SRG2]

Don't ban flag burning - just try to make this a country where people generally don't want to burn flags.

[sarcasmic]

When the two political tribes taking turns using government to punish people they hate, the inevitable result is people on the receiving end hating government.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Oh, they are trying to do that too. By getting rid of the 'vermin' and mass deportations of the 'poison'.

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

You two are being deported?

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Who would take them?

[Mother's Lament]

By getting rid of the ‘vermin’

Lying Jeffy wants you all to forget that Trump said that it's communists and Nazis who are vermin, a fact everyone who isn't a communist or Nazi agrees with.

Lying Jeffy wants instead to make you to think that Trump was talking about poor people or 'blacks' or something. Lying Jeffy is vermin like that.

[DesigNate]

I bet he still clings to the “fine people on both sides” narrative too. He’s an individualist like that

[Incunabulum]

Every country wants to burn flags. In fact, the countries that you most like, *love* to burn flags.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Government flag burning? Weren't we talking about people wanting to burn flags?

[jimc5499]

"§3. Use of flag for advertising purposes; mutilation of flag
Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature; or who, within the District of Columbia, shall manufacture, sell, expose for sale, or to public view, or give away or have in possession for sale, or to be given away or for use for any purpose, any article or substance being an article of merchandise, or a receptacle for merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached, or otherwise placed a representation of any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. The words "flag, standard, colors, or ensign", as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.

(July 30, 1947, ch. 389, 61 Stat. 642; Pub. L. 90–381, §3, July 5, 1968, 82 Stat. 291.)"

Trump does have a point. Otherwise why would we have this.

[Zeb]

If they enforced that, then every political campaign ever and a whole lot of advertisers would be guilty.

[jimc5499]

Notice that it says "within the District of Columbia". The Hamas supporters stole the flag from Penn Station and burned it. First you have theft, then vandalism and finally the US Code because Penn Station is in the District of Columbia. Added up, depending on the value of the Penn Station flag, it should add up to a bit more than a year in jail.
Pretty much what Trump is saying. Of course Reason has turned anti-Trump and their writers will take anything out of context or spin it anyway they can to make him look bad. I'm not saying that Trump is always right, he isn't, but how about a level playing field?

[Zeb]

Yeah, so charge them with theft and vandalism and arson. The law you cite is unconstitutional and pretty much everyone violates it.

[Incunabulum]

The US flag code has no enforcement provision. There is, literally, no legal penalty for breaking that law.

Sure, you could be arrested for doing so (the maximum sentence being 0 seconds confinement and 0 cents fine) but it would be illegal to arrest you for violating it because its unconstitutional.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, that law does: "...shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. "

[Incunabulum]

That law is a DC law, not US code.

And its unconstitutional this not enforced.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is the quoted statute the "flag code"? It appears to be a D.C. statute. Maybe you didn't read the quoted text before assuming it had "no enforcement provision"?

Or, you just don't know what the word "literally" means...

[Incunabulum]

We have a ton of laws on the books that are 'illegal' and thus can not be enforced.

[LIBtranslator]

That's a GREAT idea! One-Term George Holy War Bush demanded that and the death sentence for anyone selling drugs other than gin an cigarettes. Put that in the stone tablets Platform!

[Bertram Guilfoyle]

English, motherfucker, do you speak it?

[Mother's Lament]

Hank is Buttplug and Sarc's demented old man.

[tracerv]

I think he's from the Land of What.

[Chipper Chunked Chile Con Congress (ex NCW)]

Not any more, if ever.

[BYODB]

Trump is wrong, of course, once again. Flag burning is protected speech for a reason, and it's a pretty good reason.

Of course, as the article notes the specific flag burning being discussed meets absolutely none of the criteria for it being the 'ok' kind of flag burning.

Nice way to discuss the thing without actually discussing the thing. Cute rhetorical trick, but I see what you did there. At least you were semi-honest though, so it still counts even though it's basically just a passing grade.

We can also be pretty sure that since Trump is the original flavor MAGA that this is a social signal to his supporters who are 'respect the flag, respect the nation' types that he's on their side. Last I checked he didn't try to actually make this illegal his first time around, and lets just say I have my doubts that he actually intends to this next time around.

Nor, of course, is the executive capable of making law anyway making it largely a completely moot point. There is absolutely no way that the flag burning terrorist sympathizers on the left will sign on to any bill that makes this a crime. And to be clear, that's a good thing even though their actual reason for why is disgusting.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

And burning the US flag in protest would be fine if people weren't being criminally prosecuted for desecrating the left's most holy rainbow pride flags.

If the left wants to ruin people's lives for damaging their religious symbols, we get to ruin theirs for damaging the symbol of the nation. If they don't like it, they can stop what they're doing.

[Zeb]

There's a limit to where "turnabout is fair play" is valid and I think this is beyond that limit. Punishing people for desecrating your preferred symbol is wrong always. You don't go after basic, fundamental rights because the other guys did it first.

[sarcasmic]

You don’t go after basic, fundamental rights because the other guys did it first.

Dude, that’s the name of the game. Every outrageous wrong done by the other team is license to righteously do the same back to them. You’re never going to beat evil unless you become evil yourself. Remember that it's only tyranny when they are in charge.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Every outrageous wrong done by the other team is license to righteously do the same back to them.

"Just shut up and take the abuse. You're not only wrong to resist it, you shouldn't even bring it up in the first place. Really principled people love being martyrs."

[sarcasmic]

If “They violated the Constitution! That means I can too!” justifies anything, what’s the point?

[Incunabulum]

If you are being punched in the head, repeatedly, at some point it is absolutely justified to turn around and punch the person punching you. Repeatedly.

[Incunabulum]

You can ask nicely, you can explicate principles, but if they keep punching, well, they don't care about principles so you can either take it until you are beat to death, dying satisfied that you didn't betray your principles, or you can hurt the motherfucker.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Ah, so you're articulating flag burning as a kind of self-defence? Yes, that works.

[BYODB]

I'm reminded of the simple aphorism that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. The correct, and perhaps only, remedy for this particular issue isn't to make burning the U.S. flag a crime but rather to decriminalize the burning of the pride flag.

As I pointed out above, both are political messages so playing favorites seems extra retarded.

Of course, their end-run around 'free speech' in this particular case is, as always, the 'hate speech' exception to the first amendment that I have yet to locate in the founding document itself.

It also seems 'hate speech' is pretty much solely defined from one side of the political spectrum, meaning that the first amendment is something that can only be enjoyed by the left and even then only as long as they subscribe to the states explicit orthodoxy on the subject.

Notably, that is exactly the reason why burning flags was ruled permissible in the first place only with the roles essentially reversed. Now, burning the American flag is how you signal that you're a leftist patriot and burning the gay pride flag is beyond the pale. It's exactly the same shit.

[Square = Circle]

The correct, and perhaps only, remedy for this particular issue isn’t to make burning the U.S. flag a crime but rather to decriminalize the burning of the pride flag.

^ ^ ^

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

The correct, and perhaps only, remedy for this particular issue isn’t to make burning the U.S. flag a crime but rather to decriminalize the burning of the pride flag.

Except the left isn't doing that.

[shadydave]

Forget any actual attempt to do that, the mere suggestion of doing so is a good way to get unpersoned.

They won't let you defend your principles, because of course they don't hold those principles. They'll use your principles against you when it comes to burning the US flag, but they don't actually object to laws against flag burning (though they'll claim to when it serves their cause). They're just against laws against burning THAT flag.

[BYODB]

So what? If the left is that powerful, what makes you think Trump would have any success at criminalizing burning the American flag?

Frankly, Trump isn’t the guy to fight that fight in the first place. He’s a 90’s Democrat, which is apparently easy for some people to forget.

If you want sensible governance, wish on a dream that someone like Paul becomes President but I wouldn’t hold your breath. What the right craves is vengeance from where I'm sitting.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

So what? If the left is that powerful, what makes you think Trump would have any success at criminalizing burning the American flag?

You're kind of answering your own question there.

If you want sensible governance, wish on a dream that someone like Paul becomes President but I wouldn’t hold your breath. What the right craves is vengeance from where I’m sitting.

As long as the left continues to insist on practicing Herbert Marcuse's repressive tolerance, it shouldn't be a surprise that the right eventually decides to respond in kind. Not doing so is just the equivalent of telling a battered spouse, "Stop complaining about getting hit. There's nothing you can do about it, and you really shouldn't hit them back because you might get in trouble by the police."

[Zeb]

It shouldn't be a surprise, no. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[tracerv]

It's not a good thing. Reality sometimes forces you to do things to survive. What the fuck is the option at this point?

Keep taking it like a bitch or fight fire with fire?

[Square = Circle]

Not doing so is just the equivalent of telling a battered spouse, “Stop complaining about getting hit. There’s nothing you can do about it, and you really shouldn’t hit them back because you might get in trouble by the police.”

But what you're saying is more akin to "if you can't necessarily fight back against your own husband, you can at least hit some husband, which will make you feel a lot better."

[BYODB]

Just pointing out that your opinion doesn't have the political capital to succeed in the first place, and even if it did it would be an actively and objectively bad thing that the very people you dislike would be overjoyed to implement and use against you.

When your opinion turns the rachet further towards authoritarianism, you're not on the side of liberty. I've pointed out the only 'good' solution, and if that solution is impossible cutting off your nose to spite your face is not an attractive alternative.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

even if it did it would be an actively and objectively bad thing that the very people you dislike would be overjoyed to implement and use against you.

That's already happening. They're already doing it.

They crave conflict. What they don't want is resistance.

[mad.casual]

I’m reminded of the simple aphorism that an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

I question the visual acuity of anyone who thinks this specific piece of legislation would be the end of the constitution.

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind but letting a thousand people get their eyes jabbed out without even jabbing back explicitly within the rules gets people locked in their homes, their business set on fire, and a captured media supporting show trials.

[BYODB]

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong when the FedGov start declaring everything that isn't mandatory is forbidden?

If you want totalitarianism, this is one step along the path that leads there.

Right now, you can burn at least one kind of flag. Under omnipotent busybodies, if you burn any flag you go to prison. If that's the 'improvement' you want, go for it, just know you'll be among the first against the wall.

Also know the left is absolutely fine with that end result and will not care if some of their foot soldiers end up in prison. When you're making a Marxist cake, you're going to have to break a few eggs.

[sarcasmic]

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong when the FedGov start declaring everything that isn’t mandatory is forbidden?

Commerce clause only goes so far.

[MasterThief]

He has been consistent on this. He is wrong. As much as I disagree with the policy prescription, I'm also in agreement with the general sentiment. You absolutely can burn your own flag in a manner that doesn't harm others or their property. On the other hand, fuck these assholes. I invite them to leave so that America can return to what it is supposed to be

[Old Engineer]

The flag burners could be held for months in solitary confinement without being charged. Cell phone data could be used to track everyone at the flag burning and arrest them years later. Video evidence could be denied to defendants and then there could be a June 25th Committee to investigate Vice President Harris for refusing to condemn the flag burners for destroying public property.

We all know that this won't happen under a Trump administration but it did happen under Biden.

Reason writers: Get your heads out of your asses. No one will go to jail for burning a flag if Trump becomes president, but I would worry about Moms for Liberty who are hard core proponents of school school choice if Harris becomes president. Remember that onlly about a year ago, the Biden administration investigated parents as potential terrorists.

[LIBtranslator]

Georgie Holy War Bush fanboys don't die... they just wander around muttering to thimsilves about how unfair everything is...

[Brandybuck]

People who say that people who say laws against burning the flag are unconstitutional are stupid are stupid.

[mad.casual]

For the 'clearly unconstitutional' narrative sufferers: Does the crowd depicted burning the flag represent a peaceable assembly to you? How about a well-regulated protest?

[mtrueman]

Burning an American Flag is the proper way to dispose of it, according to the protocol experts at the DOD.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2206946/how-to-properly-dispose-of-worn-out-us-flags/
As long as the burners salute the burning flag, recite the pledge of allegiance, or hum a patriotic song, all is kosher.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

FOAD, shit pile.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Trump's comments were not in any way limited to Wednesday's Hamas protesters; he clearly wants a law which would make it a federal crime to burn an American flag.

He said it Wednesday, and he said it in 2020. He probably means what he said. Why don't you believe him?

[One-Punch_Man]

Wait so if you burn the US flag - you are an edgy protester.

Skid marks on a Pride Flag drawn on the road - hate crime and jail time.

Burning any other flag than the US is Aok. Defacing US history is fine.

Fine you want to say it's free speech, fine. Doesn't mean there isn't consequences.

Maybe the group of Karens oops AWFLs can solve this

[Brandybuck]

Several years ago a "patriot" in San Fransisco had a huge giant flag painted on the side of his building, with the words "these colors don't run". Never never bothered maintaining that flag, so after a year those colors were indeed running. So pathetic.

Maybe he should go to jail. I'll ask Donnie.

[Moderation4ever]

Trump should read some of Anthony Scalia's thought on flag burning as he is such an admirer of the late justice.

[Red Rocks White Privilege]

Your side should stop exercising such blatant double standards.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

If he didn’t have double standards he’d have none at all.

[Mother's Lament]

Tell us again why burning the rainbow flag is a crime, misconstrueman.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Is that what Scalia said? Well, I never!

[Jerry B.]

“Protesters vandalized statues outside D.C.'s Union Station with phrases like "Hamas is comin" and "long live the resistance."”

So, did anyone get arrested for this? Or is that protected speech as well, as long as you’re protesting the proper thing?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Yes. Would you like me to Google that for you?

[TJJ2000]

Trump is wrong about this. But I see the TDS leftards are still holding the needle in the haystack for all it's worth. Pathetic.

[Joe]

"wrote Chief Justice William Brennan in the court's majority opinion."

William Brennan was never Chief Justice.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

True, dat.

[Incunabulum]

You know what? Who cares anymore?

1. It's unconstitutional. It's not like I don't want to do unconstitutional things.

2. It's a legislative action anyway - so the president can't do it. See Biden's student loan bullshit.

I don't care about stupid opinions from people who can't enforce them.

[Incunabulum]

Trump says something stupid, Democrats actually throw people in jail for desecrating their symbols. But Trump is the villain?

Fascism Is always descending on Trump but landing on Biden.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...Fascism Is always descending on Trump but landing on Biden."

There is, and never has been, a doubt that Trump is both a blow-hard and a loose cannon.
And there is, similarly, no doubt that, regardless of the noise (and his failure regarding trade policy), he remains the best POTUS we've had since Silent Cal.

[Stuck in California]

It's Emma Camp, dude. This is the best she can come up with. She's not bright enough to see her own bias.

[AT]

Trump Calls for Jailing Flag Burners

So, he's taking a fairly Democrat stance on the subject here. No different than the LGBT pedos and their Democrat enablers who are charging people with felonies for leaving marks when driving over pedo rainbows painted on streets intended for automobile use.

Interesting.

Now, that said, Trump whiffed the ball on this one. Emma capitalized on it, like I'm sure almost all the other Marxist Useful Idiots in media will - but let's take a look at the action in question:

At one point, protesters replaced the American flag with a Palestinian flag and then burned the American flag.

So, Trump zeroed in on the last part. As despicable as I find the practice, that IS protected under Constitutional Law. That same law should apply to anyone who wants to desecrate LGBT pedo flags and Hamas flags or what have you, but that's a subject for a different day.

What he should have focused on was the first part: replacing the American flag with a "Palestinian" (sic, there's no such thing as "Palestine") [Hamas] flag.

OK, so I despise it when people throw this word around, but I think it's actually kinda legit here. That's treasonous. Not in the legal sense, as defined by SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitutional term - but it's absolutely an overt betrayal of the allegiance that Americans are assumed to have for their nation, in favor of allegiance to another.

It's one thing to burn the flag because you're upset at what your nation is doing. This is the whole Vietnam (and later Iraq) version of 1A protected flag burning.

It's a whole other thing to lower the flag and raise a hostile enemy's flag because of it. Especially when those doing so are in the cultural garb and repeating the calls of said hostile enemy.

Now, should that be jailable? YMMV. But I'd darn sure be in support of detaining everyone present for no reason other than to identify them and put them on a terrorist watchlist. One that restricts their movement, ability to do business, and maybe even denies them return should they leave the country.

Again, keep in mind - this isn't like waving a Mexican flag during an immigration rally. Distasteful, but ultimately whatever. This isn't that. This is literally taking down (and destroying) an American flag, to raise the flag of an openly known and recognized enemy terrorist state. One that is openly engaged in a war they started with our allies, and has even made violent inroads on our own soil.

Trump focused on the wrong thing. And even if he'd focused on the right thing, he had the wrong approach to dealing with it.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

He "focused on the wrong thing" in 2020, too, apparently...

How did he see it coming?!?

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

ONS is obviously a TDS victim. FOAD, asshole.

[LIBtranslator]

If ATF were capable of a second language, this babbling might get some traction in the People's State of Germany.

[AT]

Yo hablo espanol.

Et francais.

Soshite sukoshi nihongo.

I sound like a retard in Japanese though. :/

[Marc St. Stephen]

There is a case to be made that if one takes someone else's flag, say a flag on federal property, and burns it without permission, then you can arrest and jail them for destruction of property. If it's a federally owned flag, you can specifically make it a one year sentence.

Just saying - if you want to go after these anti-American, I don't have a fucking job and this is my livelihood, assholes, that's the way to do it.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

That's fine, but it's a silly hill to die on. Trump has many positive stances, but he seems to stumble on issues like this.
Regardless, would you chose Cackles?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

It's already illegal to do that.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

Let's agree that people should be allowed to do what they want with their own property. If they've bought or otherwise legitimately acquired a flag, they can do what they like with it, be it an American flag, an LGBTQ&C... flag, a Trump-as-Rambo flag, or whatever. Reasonable fire-related restrictions, of course, with no reference to the specific object being burned apart from its flammability properties.

But a lot of the protest-burnings involve taking—stealing—and destroying someone else's flag. I think we're all agreed that this is a criminal act, and that the law should treat it as such, whatever the motives of the flag-burner.

The question then becomes: Could we, consistent with the First Amendment and our deep respect for freedom of speech, treat criminal desecration of flags differently than that of other items of similar monetary value? I could see this going two ways.

On the one hand, the victims of the theft are likely to feel more distress from the destruction of their flag than from that of their garden gnome, and the law can legitimately consider the suffering of those victims. But on the other hand, this seems like it's getting close to heckler's-veto territory, where I have incentive to get as overwrought as possible in response to your treatment of my team's symbols.

[Vernon Depner]

We already have a precedent for that in ethnic intimidation laws. Burning a cross on someone's lawn is a more serious crime than burning a pile of brush on their lawn. Writing "nigger" on someone's garage is a more serious crime than throwing a can of paint on someone's garage.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

And do "we" support prosecuting thought as a crime?

Yes or no.

[LIBtranslator]

Why not frame those meanderings as an indictment and try it out on a jury?

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

Well, I'm sure looking forward to not having to vote anymore...

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

And we are hoping ignorant assholes like you do not.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

You're hoping? And to think Trump's spokesmouth, Steven Cheung, said it was an appeal to unity!

Here's what Trump had said: "In the closing minutes of his speech to a gathering of religious conservatives on Friday night, former President Donald J. Trump told Christians that if they voted him into office in November, they would never need to vote again.

“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said at The Believers’ Summit, an event hosted by the conservative advocacy group Turning Point Action, in West Palm Beach, Fla. “You won’t have to do it anymore, you know what? Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

Mr. Trump, who never made a particular display of religious observance before entering politics, continued: “I love you, Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you, you got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not going to have to vote.”"

Not even Trump's most nimble spokesmouth, Steven Cheung, knew how to spin that one, so he settled on ignoring anything to do with "voting", "not voting" or "fixing it":

"Asked to clarify Mr. Trump’s intent, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign, said in a statement: “President Trump was talking about uniting this country and bringing prosperity to every American, as opposed to the divisive political environment that has sowed so much division and even resulted in an assassination attempt.”"

What even Steve was probably thinking: "WTF"?

[LIBtranslator]

This is the same Faith-healing Televangelist candidate who called for locking up anyone who ran against his bund-buddies, right?

[LIBtranslator]

Note to foreign readers: Observe that the Trumpanzistas infiltrating the libertarian comments space are strangely silent about burning books. Their New York Society for the Supression of Vice demanded men with guns burn books and enforce Comstockism. Republican mayor of Chicago Bill Thompson burned English books. Germany's Christian NSDAP of course, did that and more. But not long ago Alabama staged huge burnings of books and Beatles albums. https://libertariantranslator.wordpress.com/2019/08/29/why-ecological-national-socialism/

[GroundTruth]

Time and again, Trump demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of intent, structure and content of the Constitution and the Republic it envisions.

Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have Trump that Harris, but Trump needs to surround himself with, and listen to, experienced advisors with a consistent republican (style of government, not the party) outlook.

[STMitchell]

I’ve always burned my old American flags when they’re worn out and replaced. I find it more respectful than putting them in the trash. This law would put me in jail for a year.

[Henweigh]

According to the U.S. Flag Code, “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”. While this is the preferred way to dispose a flag, it can also be dangerous.

[car-keynes]

Politicians begin their term by using speech to challenge the sort of persons who need be challenged most. Many of us, as revealed by no less than the article itself if not the comments, have waded through lots of prior consideration on the subject. Even though the court decided, we see politicians calling to make supreme court justices dependent on party politics so they serve a limited, possibly renewable term if they prove to please their masters. On the other hand, Trump has a point about Stupid pulling down federal or otherly-owned flags and burning them.