An amendment to the constitution prohibiting flag-burning has been considered for a while. Do you think that flag-burning ought to be made illegal? To you think that the amendment will ever get passed?

personally - i don't think it should be against the law - it's just a piece of cloth after all - but being a marine i've learned to look to that very piece of cloth for hope and sense of honour and pride. by burning it, one disrespects the soldier who fights under it; but it is to give you the right to burn it that the soldier fights.

quote:

Originally posted by Hydrok:
Mac, it's not that I dont care what you have to say, It's that I made a request for him to post a link, for a bundle of reasons, to give the post some credability, allow others to see the context of the text, because I know that SOME people have a real habit of taking things out of context to prove a point thats not really there, and so that we can decide the validity of the source and how it applies to the topic.

As I said before, those are valid reasons. But it's not up to a mod to tell him to do that. If others have a problem with the source they will ask themselves.

quote:

Thats why I requested a source, and I'd appreciated it if you quit crawling up my back about it. I have the right to ask for a source, and the burden of proof lies with him,

Yeah, you have the right to ask for it. He's got the right to not give it. As I said, this isn't breaking any law.

quote:

and you cant tell me that I'm wrong for asking, because thats not the case.

Technically speaking, I could tell you that.

Mac, it's not that I dont care what you have to say, It's that I made a request for him to post a link, for a bundle of reasons, to give the post some credability, allow others to see the context of the text, because I know that SOME people have a real habit of taking things out of context to prove a point thats not really there, and so that we can decide the validity of the source and how it applies to the topic. Thats why I requested a source, and I'd appreciated it if you quit crawling up my back about it. I have the right to ask for a source, and the burden of proof lies with him, and you cant tell me that I'm wrong for asking, because thats not the case.

quote:

Originally posted by Aguagon:
When you copy seventeen paragraphs in their entirety, providing a source is considered common etiquette. What you posted was a transcript, a transcript that someone took the time to write out. Not only is providing a source good etiquette, it also gives credibility to the content and gives it context. Even a good old-fashioned "The following is a transcript of yada yada yada" would have done the trick. Otherwise, what you had copied here could have been interpreted as a short story.

Agreed. Etiqutte wise, it probably should have been provided. That said, legally, there was nothing wrong with it.

quote:

Plus, quotes alone don't make taking entire transcripts (or huge portions of transcripts) from other sites okay. I have no idea whether my blog is copyrighted or not, but I'd be ticked if someone posted one of my posts in its entirety on other site without sourcing me, whether it was in quotation marks or not.

Your blog is copyrighted. But that is also slightly different. Firstly you are not running or in political office, and you are writing things. Written things are always copyrighted.

Yes, if they quoted you, which they are allowed to do, they'd pretty much have to give a link to your blog.

quote:

Originally posted by YNmod4:
So you dont have a source for it is what your saying. Thats kind of the response I expected, I asked you nicely twice, thanks for playing.

You don't need it. Look did you even read what I said? Or did you read it and totally ignore it? If it is the second it means you don't think you can be wrong, which is bad for a mod. If it is the first, it means you don't care about what others say about the situation.

I'd imagine this is it: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju86952.000/hju86952_0.HTM

But really, just cite your sources. It isn't that difficult.

So you dont have a source for it is what your saying. Thats kind of the response I expected, I asked you nicely twice, thanks for playing.

When you copy seventeen paragraphs in their entirety, providing a source is considered common etiquette. What you posted was a transcript, a transcript that someone took the time to write out. Not only is providing a source good etiquette, it also gives credibility to the content and gives it context. Even a good old-fashioned "The following is a transcript of yada yada yada" would have done the trick. Otherwise, what you had copied here could have been interpreted as a short story.

Plus, quotes alone don't make taking entire transcripts (or huge portions of transcripts) from other sites okay. I have no idea whether my blog is copyrighted or not, but I'd be ticked if someone posted one of my posts in its entirety on other site without sourcing me, whether it was in quotation marks or not.

quote:

Originally posted by mac123:

quote:

Originally posted by YNmod4:


Where did it come from Kidd? Post a source, attach a link or some sort of refrence to the conversation before it comes down.
If you dont put a link there it's technically stealing.

No, stealing is taking something from someone else without their permission. Speeches cannot be copyrighted, and furthermore even if they were,posting quotes from a political speech would IMO be generally considered fair use under copyright law.

Would you like a reference to that, or can you google it yourself? Thanks.

Thanks. I am glad other people see through efforts of the YN thought police.

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
Flag burning is not treason. It is a form of protest allowed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

According to your interpretation of it.

quote:

Originally posted by YNmod4:


Where did it come from Kidd? Post a source, attach a link or some sort of refrence to the conversation before it comes down.
If you dont put a link there it's technically stealing.

No, stealing is taking something from someone else without their permission. Speeches cannot be copyrighted, and furthermore even if they were,posting quotes from a political speech would IMO be generally considered fair use under copyright law.

Would you like a reference to that, or can you google it yourself? Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Kidd:

quote:

Originally posted by YNmod4:
Please do not post 3rd party articles in their entirety... and always leave a link or a source, other wise it's plagerism.

Its not at article. Its a speech. And its in quotes.

Plagerism is an attempt to pass anothers work off as your own. Since each of the speakers is clearly labeled and written in bold lettering before they speech is written, credit is clearly given.

Thank you very much.

Where did it come from Kidd? Post a source, attach a link or some sort of refrence to the conversation before it comes down.
If you dont put a link there it's technically stealing.

quote:

Originally posted by YNmod4:
Please do not post 3rd party articles in their entirety... and always leave a link or a source, other wise it's plagerism.

Its not at article. Its a speech. And its in quotes.

Plagerism is an attempt to pass anothers work off as your own. Since each of the speakers is clearly labeled and written in bold lettering before they speech is written, credit is clearly given.

Thank you very much.

Treason is betraying your country, in such a way that involves selling state secrets, or other such things. Flag burning is not treason. It is a form of protest allowed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

I thought flag burning was against the law... isn't that called treason.

it is but there is a ceremony that goes with it if a flag touches the ground it does need to be burned.

Alot of people say that, and believe me, the only proper way to retire a old flag is to burn it. Is that really "True"?

Please do not post 3rd party articles in their entirety... and always leave a link or a source, other wise it's plagerism.

"So, it is troubling that there are those who - without thinking the issue through - would use the symbol of that liberty to erode the freedom it represents."

Mr. CHABOT:. Thank you. General, it is an honor to have you here this afternoon. Before we get to your testimony, we are going to introduce the other members of the panel, and we appreciate that very much, Mr. Janklow, and it is certainly an honor to have you as one of our panel members this afternoon.

The gentleman from New York is recognized for the purpose of making an opening statement if he would like to do it at this time.

Mr. NADLER: I would, indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here we go again with the annual Republican rite of spring, a proposed amendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to restrict what it calls flag desecration. Why spring? Because the calendar tells us that Memorial Day will soon be upon us. June 14 is Flag Day, and then we have July 4. Members need to send out a press release extolling the need to ''protect'' the flag, as if the flag somehow needs Congress to protect it.

The flag is a symbol of a great nation and of the fundamental freedoms that have made this nation great. If the flags need protection at all, it is from Members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedom that the flag represents.

People have rights in this country that supercede public opinion, even strongly held public opinion. If we do not preserve those rights, the flag will then have been desecrated far beyond the capability of any individual with a cigarette lighter. But we will go through this exercise anyway.


I wonder if I am the only Member of the Subcommittee who would be willing to simply read last year's debate into the record, allow any new Members to say their pieces, consider any amendments, and move on, since the debate doesn't change from year to year.

Let there be no doubt this amendment is aimed directly at unpopular ideas. Current Federal law says the preferred way to dispose of a tattered flag is to burn it, but there are those who would criminalize the same act if it was done to express political disagreement.

Current Federal law, which is constitutionally void, also makes it misdemeanor to use the flag for advertising or on packaging. How many Members of Congress, used car dealers, fast food restaurants, and other seemingly legitimate individuals and enterprises have engaged in this act which our laws define as criminal desecration? If I recall, at the last Republican National Convention, probably the Democratic Convention, but I recall at the Republican Convention seeing people with flag-designed sandals, t-shirts, and even shorts. This amendment would presumably make that law constitutional once more. If ratified, I think there are more than a few people who will have to redesign their campaign materials to stay out of jail.

I am proud to welcome an officer of the Port Authority Police to our committee. No New Yorker who lived through that day, the days after, and the memorials we all attended could ever forget their service and how moving it was to see that flag. I am, however, getting a bit tired of that act of terrorist barbarism being used to justify a plethora of political causes. As the President has often remarked, the people who murdered 3,000 of my neighbors did so because they hated our free society. But to use that atrocity to justify a curtailment of our American freedoms strikes me as a desecration of their memory.


Similarly, many people marched against the war, objected to the political use of their loved ones' deaths to justify the war. For example, Rita Lasar became angry when the attacks were used to justify the war. Her brother died in the North Tower, refusing to leave his quadriplegic coworker whose son was a member of Rescue Squad 288 and who died in the Trade Center said, ''He would not have wanted innocent people killed in his name.'' She was later arrested for her dissent against the war with Iraq.

So people who claim the right to speak for the dead of September 11 show a bit of modesty. I represent that community in Congress and I can tell you they do not all hold the same views on this issue. In fact, there is probably more opposition to this proposed amendment in my district than almost anywhere else in this country.

People have died for the nation and the rights which this flag so proudly represents. We should not start destroying the way of life for which they made the ultimate sacrifice.

Let me just add one comment that what I mean when I say that this amendment is aimed not really at destroying the flag or burning the flag, it is aimed at unpopular political opinions. No one would think, no one would think that if someone made a movie about World War II and showed actors playing Nazi soldiers burned an American flag, portraying what Nazi soldiers did during the war, no one would arrest those actors and say they did a terrible thing. But if someone in a demonstration against the policy of whoever the current Administration is burned an American flag, that is presumably what this amendment is aimed against.

So the real sin is not burning the flag. Burning the flag in a movie is okay. Burning the flag to express unpopular opinions should be made criminal, and that is what this amendment gets at.

The fact of the matter is, I will say one other thing. No one is burning flags. This amendment is aimed at a problem that doesn't exist. The problem may have existed 30 years ago when this amendment was first proposed, but I'm not aware of any incidents of flag desecration in the United States, maybe in Iraq, but not in the United States, in the last 20 or 30 years.

But the point is, people—the point is, people are entitled to their opinions. The flag represents freedom, and by passing an amendment to limit free speech, which is what this amendment is, we are going against the idea that the flag represents. The idea is more important than the piece of cloth. We should protect the ideas of the freedom this nation represents, the idea that the people who fought and died under that flag fought and died for. We should protect American freedoms and reject this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman."