Norway: Comedian Burns US Flag On TV

[LucienVanImpe]

Legal precedence suggests that he may land himself a jail term because of this satirical stunt - in case an official complaint is filed with the authorities:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=490466

The Land of the Midnight Sun also contributed this anti-American diatribe to the political discourse on Iraq last month:

http://home.online.no/~ivajoha/htmlformat.html

Note the signatories. An ambassador and former leader of the Labor Party, high-ranking trade unionists, several MP's, journalists etc. The launcher of the campaign is a host on national, public television.

[Michael Redman]

Jailing him would be more of a protest against what the US stands for than his burning of the flag, in my opinion.

[HarryKeogh]

guess he should have burned the flag in the USA. we recognize it as free speech.

[LucienVanImpe]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Jailing him would be more of a protest against what the US stands for than his burning of the flag, in my opinion.
Yup, and that's why I believe he can sleep safely. Even though the U.S. Embassy in Norway has criticised the flag burning and characterized it as offensive, I'm quite convinced that they wouldn't like to see him jailed.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Jailing him would be more of a protest against what the US stands for than his burning of the flag, in my opinion.

Maybe he should apply for asylum.

[Tmy]

Yknow how they always show these flag burnings in anti-US countries? I wonder where they buy all these flags???? Is there a flag burning store that sells pre-gas soaked flags for better burning?? Really, where does one find a US flag in downtown Baghadad.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yknow how they always show these flag burnings in anti-US countries? I wonder where they buy all these flags???? Is there a flag burning store that sells pre-gas soaked flags for better burning?? Really, where does one find a US flag in downtown Baghadad.

They take them off the masts of captured US warships.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yknow how they always show these flag burnings in anti-US countries? I wonder where they buy all these flags???? Is there a flag burning store that sells pre-gas soaked flags for better burning?? Really, where does one find a US flag in downtown Baghadad.

It's one of our hotest exports. Yay them for buying American:D

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by LucienVanImpe
Legal precedence suggests that he may land himself a jail term because of this satirical stunt - in case an official complaint is filed with the authorities:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=490466

The Land of the Midnight Sun also contributed this anti-American diatribe to the political discourse on Iraq last month:

http://home.online.no/~ivajoha/htmlformat.html

Note the signatories. An ambassador and former leader of the Labor Party, high-ranking trade unionists, several MP's, journalists etc. The launcher of the campaign is a host on national, public television. Wow!

A Norwegian taking his freedom of speech seriously!

Lucien, even with famous names on the list, I don't think you should mix up the Norwegian nation with those protestors - Norway is in general one of the nicest guys in class, standing to attention when principal US says so.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
guess he should have burned the flag in the USA. we recognize it as free speech.
And so it should be. Within the constraints of fire safety laws you should (In a Free Country) be able to burn anything you damn well like....Isn't this what the USA says it is fighting for? Freedom?

[Troll]

Originally posted by The Fool

And so it should be. Within the constraints of fire safety laws you should (In a Free Country) be able to burn anything you damn well like....Isn't this what the USA says it is fighting for? Freedom?

Actually it's the freedom of Starbucks and McDonalds. I mean we're sick of seeing them on every corner and would like to open up a market in some other country for them.

[shanek]

Tim Slagle has a great flag burning routine he's been doing for several years. Penn & Teller recently added one to their show (although it's more of a flag-disappearing-act-behind-flash-paper than a flag burning). When are these guys going to be arrested?

Jespersen's burning was accidental. That makes prison even more ridiculous.

[LucienVanImpe]

Originally posted by Bjorn
A Norwegian taking his freedom of speech seriously!
But apparently Norwegian freedom of speech doesn't extend to setting symbolic pieces of cloth on fire.

From the article: "Legal experts agree that the flag-burning is clearly illegal and that precedence exists for jail terms for similar acts."

And even if it was legal, which indeed I think it should be, I'd still find it to be a distasteful deed, even if cloaked as satire. I wonder if the comedian would have the guts to burn the Norwegian flag. Or that of Iraq.
Lucien, even with famous names on the list, I don't think you should mix up the Norwegian nation with those protestors - Norway is in general one of the nicest guys in class, standing to attention when principal US says so.
I know the letter does not reflect the position of the Norwegian government, or of Norway as a whole, but I find it interesting that members of parliament would willingly sign such a clunky and spiteful composition.

For instance, how is one to interpret these words:

"If we can do anything to help you
get rid of George W. Bush
before he wrecks your reputation
and messes up the whole planet,
please let us know!"

Are they going to hire an assassin?

[LucienVanImpe]

Originally posted by shanek
Jespersen's burning was accidental. That makes prison even more ridiculous.
It wasn't accidental. It was meant to appear accidental.

As he gives a speech about turning Baghdad into a crematorium, he 'happens' to set the Stars & Stripes on fire instead.

Satirical twist.

[rikzilla]

So that's how free Norway is????:eek: :eek:

I guess that's why Claus Larsen lives in NYC eh??? :D ;)

-zilla

[Advocate]

Does anyone else find it amusing that burning an American flag is legal in the US but illegal in Norway?

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Advocate
Does anyone else find it amusing that burning an American flag is legal in the US but illegal in Norway? Yes, that was my first thought after reading it - could the American Embassy in Oslo file charges, when the same act would be legal in the US? :)

As for the political leaders attitude towards Iraq and the possible war, I think this is more representative:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=490609

Thorbjørn Jagland: It is extremely important for the Security Council to carry out its decision. If not, all manner of despot can do as they please. Iraq has invaded two other countries, used chemical weapons and supports suicide missions against Israel, which is the crucial reason Sharon now holds power in Israel. So it would be a big advantage for world peace if Iraq was disarmed and Saddam Hussein removed. Rikzilla, Claus is not Norwegian! Never was!

And if you ask me, I'm not even sure if burning a Norwegian flag is illegal in Norway. :p

Tasteful, hardly, but the 'comedian' in question is more or less a Norwegian version of Lenny Bruce.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Yes, that was my first thought after reading it - could the American Embassy in Oslo file charges, when the same act would be legal in the US? :)

As for the political leaders attitude towards Iraq and the possible war, I think this is more representative:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=490609

Rikzilla, Claus is not Norwegian! Never was!

And if you ask me, I'm not even sure if burning a Norwegian flag is illegal in Norway. :p

Tasteful, hardly, but the 'comedian' in question is more or less a Norwegian version of Lenny Bruce.

Oh yeah...mea culpa!

Norway..Denmark....it's all good. ;)

[Richard G]

My favorite flag burner....
http://www.harrelsonfamily.com/USA/oldgloryfightsback2.jpg

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Bjorn

And if you ask me, I'm not even sure if burning a Norwegian flag is illegal in Norway. :p


It's not - the law in question (Straffeloven paragraph 95) prohibits "mockery against a foreign nation's flag or coat of arms" as well as harassing foreign representatives and trespassing or vandalism against areas and buildings used for foreign representation.

(Note, I'm not a lawyer, so the various terms used in the text of the law might very well contain nuances I'm completely unaware of - in particular the word I've translated as "mockery".)

[corplinx]

The thing that always worried me about Americans who supported flag burning amendments is that a great many of them were protestant xians who were clearly making an idol out of the flag.

I am a libertarian when it comes to flag burning. You are free to do it. Of course, if you do it near me you will probably get your ass beat. I however don't believe its any of government's business (except the possible assault charge which I would accept).

In Norway, I cannot believe they have a law against any form of mockery. Mind you, this is where political correctness could take America if unchecked.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by corplinx
In Norway, I cannot believe they have a law against any form of mockery. Mind you, this is where political correctness could take America if unchecked.

The precise word used in the text of the law is "forhåning" - "mock" isn't really a precise translation. I suppose "insult" might be closer, but again, this is legal terminology and the word might have a particular legal meaning I'm unaware of.

Personally I consider the first part of this paragraph rather over-zealous, but I wouldn't really say it's an expression of political correctness. I don't know the story of this law, or its use, but it appears to me that its meant to prevent incidents that would cause "bad diplomatic blood."

[WMT1]

Originally posted by corplinx
I am a libertarian when it comes to flag burning. You are free to do it. Of course, if you do it near me you will probably get your ass beat.

Since you claim to be libertarian, I realize you may only be joking about the last part. But on the chance that you're not, what possible justification would there be for violence - any violence - in response to such a harmless act?

[Smalso]

If I go to WalMart and pay $9.95 for a piece of cloth sewn into a particular pattern then decide to burn it, that's my right. If someone wishes to try to beat my ass for it, bring him on. I have had my ass beaten--literally and figuratively--in the past for exercising rights guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution. They had to gang up on me to do it, though; chickenshits that they were,

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by corplinx
I am a libertarian when it comes to flag burning. You are free to do it. Of course, if you do it near me you will probably get your ass beat. I however don't believe its any of government's business (except the possible assault charge which I would accept).

I'll go out on a limb and presume you were not the originator of the maxim, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." You contradict your first two sentences with your third. That's deep thinkin' for ya!

[Ove]

I guess that's why Claus Larsen lives in NYC eh???

No that is why he's moved. ;)

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Troll


It's one of our hotest exports. Yay them for buying American:D

The flag was probably made in China, if it's anything like the flags a lot of folke were waving about after 9/11.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yknow how they always show these flag burnings in anti-US countries? I wonder where they buy all these flags???? Is there a flag burning store that sells pre-gas soaked flags for better burning?? Really, where does one find a US flag in downtown Baghadad. :D Now you are not suggesting that government officials are supplying the flags for propaganda purposes are you?

Edited to fix typo.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Smalso
If I go to WalMart and pay $9.95 for a piece of cloth sewn into a particular pattern then decide to burn it, that's my right. If someone wishes to try to beat my ass for it, bring him on. I have had my ass beaten--literally and figuratively--in the past for exercising rights guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution. They had to gang up on me to do it, though; chickenshits that they were, The answer to bad speech is more speech. I support your right absolutely Smalso without any reservation or condition. Though I must say that it does hurt me when someone burns my flag. Free speech is simply too important to defend only when government is regulating it.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by RandFan
The answer to bad speech is more speech. I support your right absolutely Smalso without any reservation or condition. Though I must say that it does hurt me when someone burns my flag. Free speech is simply too important to defend only when government is regulating it.

I'll drink to that. I've never burned a flag in my life and don't intend to. I get steamed when I see someone do it, but I try not to let it show. That's probably why they do it anyway, just to get people worked up. But I support someone's right to do it. It's not up to me to decide what is and is not legitimate protest.

[Buzzsaw]

Originally posted by Smalso
If I go to WalMart and pay $9.95 for a piece of cloth sewn into a particular pattern then decide to burn it, that's my right.

That is a serious case of reductionism, as a flag is supposed to be a symbol of a particular nation. In some sense, it is more than a "piece of cloth sewn into a particular pattern."

In the same sense, I can't go to WalMart, buy a marker and poster board, and exercise my First Ammendment right by writing a particular series of letters on said board stating "I have a bomb" and display it on an airplane without expecting some consequences.

I'm being the devil's advocate here; in some sense a flag is merely a cloth and in some sense it symbolizes a nation. I could display a sign urging people to "kill all fools", but the moment I substitute a real person's name for "fool", I'm in a lot of trouble. The letters of a person's name aren't random characters; taken together they stand for and identify a real person.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Buzzsaw

I'm being the devil's advocate here; in some sense a flag is merely a cloth and in some sense it symbolizes a nation. I could display a sign urging people to "kill all fools", but the moment I substitute a real person's name for "fool", I'm in a lot of trouble.

Not really. I haven't seen someone locked up yet for having "Kill Saddam" or "Kill Osama" on their car.

[shanek]

I have to admit, flag burning doesn't really bother me. As George Carlin said, "I leave symbols to the symbol-minded."

[Smalso]

by Buzzsaw:
In the same sense, I can't go to WalMart, buy a marker and poster board, and exercise my First Ammendment right by writing a particular series of letters on said board stating "I have a bomb" and display it on an airplane without expecting some consequences.

Do you honestly not see the difference between these two actions?

[crocodile deathroll]

If he bought the flag with his own money then it is really not an American flag but his.
Besides did you take a close look at the label that said "made in China"?

[shanek]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If he bought the flag with his own money then it is really not an American flag but his.
Besides did you take a close look at the label that said "made in China"?

Tim Slagle actually uses that in his routine. When he talks about burning the flag, and he takes out the flag, he says, "Don't worry; this one only has 49 stars and was made in China." :D

[Buzzsaw]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist


Not really. I haven't seen someone locked up yet for having "Kill Saddam" or "Kill Osama" on their car.

Touche! I think Saddam and Osama are beyond the protection of our local police force however.

[Buzzsaw]

Originally posted by Smalso
by Buzzsaw:


Do you honestly not see the difference between these two actions?

Yes, there is a difference, but my point was the U.S. flag can stand for something, or nothing, depending on one's viewpoint. But to describe it as nothing more than a patterned cloth is to deny that it is a symbol at all. Just what that symbol represents is open to interpretation, but even though flag burning annoys me a little, I don't see the need to ban it. Flag burning is an attack on something that can't be burned itself.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Buzzsaw


Yes, there is a difference, but my point was the U.S. flag can stand for something, or nothing, depending on one's viewpoint. But to describe it as nothing more than a patterned cloth is to deny that it is a symbol at all. Just what that symbol represents is open to interpretation, but even though flag burning annoys me a little, I don't see the need to ban it. Flag burning is an attack on something that can't be burned itself.

Fair enough.

[Kodiak]

I've always said that everyone has the right to burn the US flag so long as I have to right to take steps so that it doesn't occur in my presence.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I've always said that everyone has the right to burn the US flag so long as I have to right to take steps so that it doesn't occur in my presence.

Like what?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by WMT1


Like what?

Like taking the flag away from them. Anyone man enough to try to burn it while its in my custody can feel free to try...

I'll accept punishment for whatever possible crime (petty theft, disturbing the peace, ect...) I might be charged with.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I've always said that everyone has the right to burn the US flag so long as I have to right to take steps so that it doesn't occur in my presence.

Originally posted by WMT1
Like what?

Originally posted by Kodiak
Like taking the flag away from them.

And this is a step you think you have a "right" to take???


Anyone man enough to try to burn it while its in my custody can feel free to try...

Isn't that a little like saying "anyone man enough to take back the property I've stolen from them can feel free to try"?


I'll accept punishment for whatever possible crime (petty theft, disturbing the peace, ect...) I might be charged with.

That's all well and good. But why would you want to commit such an act in the first place?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by WMT1
And this is a step you think you have a "right" to take???

Not in the legal or constitutional sense, of course, but in the sense that I'll accept any and all repercussions for my actions.

Originally posted by WMT1
Isn't that a little like saying "anyone man enough to take back the property I've stolen from them can feel free to try"?

Yes, absolutely. If I'm arrested, the flag is taken into custody for evidence, to be returned at a later date, where the person will again probably decide to burn it...but not in my presence at least.

Originally posted by WMT1
That's all well and good. But why would you want to commit such an act in the first place?

Because when I was a US serviceman, I took a oath to protect and defend what the stars and stripes symbolizes. My oath is not lessened just because I am now a civilian. I am equally confused why you would not be willing to protect the symbol of our country and its constitution.

I'm just as frustrated when I see Americans incorrectly displaying or handling the flag by letting it touch the ground, not illuminating it at night, or letting it fall into disrepair...

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
And this is a step you think you have a "right" to take???

Originally posted by Kodiak
Not in the legal or constitutional sense, of course, but in the sense that I'll accept any and all repercussions for my actions.

So, in this same sense, you'd say that someone has a "right" to commit murder, as long as they're willing to "accept any and all repercussions" for their actions?


Isn't that a little like saying "anyone man enough to take back the property I've stolen from them can feel free to try"?

Yes, absolutely. If I'm arrested, the flag is taken into custody for evidence, to be returned at a later date, where the person will again probably decide to burn it...but not in my presence at least.

Is there something special about your presence that somehow trumps someone else's freedom of expression?


That's all well and good. But why would you want to commit such an act in the first place?

Because when I was a US serviceman, I took a oath to protect and defend what the stars and stripes symbolizes.

And just exactly what do you think it "symbolizes"? Does the freedom of expression I just referred to enter the equation anywhere?


My oath is not lessened just because I am now a civilian.

I'd say any "oath" that makes you think you've got a right to interfere with someone else's freedom of expression was an invalid oath to begin with.


I am equally confused why you would not be willing to protect the symbol of our country and it constitution.

Because actual principles, which are much more important to begin with, are often lost in concerns over symbolism. Beyond fire safety or property rights considerations, if someone wants to burn a flag, it's hard to justify much more than a shrug. Getting all worked up about someone doing so is at least somewhat petty, bordering on childish. It can even be dangerous. Why, before you know it, some people might start to think physical aggression is a valid response. Does that help clear up the confusion?


I'm just as frustrated when I see Americans incorrectly displaying or handling the flag by letting it touch the ground, not lighting it at night, or letting it fall into disrepair...

Then maybe a rearrangement of priorities is in order.

[Fade]

So disagreeing with what one chooses to do with their property, in your mind, gives you the right to take it from them?

Well, in that case, I dislike how you fold your wallet, hand it over or i'll beat the **** out of you :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Because when I was a US serviceman, I took a oath to protect and defend what the stars and stripes symbolizes.

According to Section 502 of the US Code, here's the oath you took:

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Not one thing about the Stars and Stripes, but you do swear to support and defend the Constitution. By using force to deprive someone else of their right to free expression, you would, in fact, be violating this oath.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I've always said that everyone has the right to burn the US flag so long as I have to right to take steps so that it doesn't occur in my presence.

The proper steps to take would be away from where it is taking place.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by WMT1


So, in this same sense, you'd say that someone has a "right" to commit murder, as long as they're willing to "accept any and all repercussions" for their actions?




Is there something special about your presence that somehow trumps someone else's freedom of expression?




And just exactly what do you think it "symbolizes"? Does the freedom of expression I just referred to enter the equation anywhere?




I'd say any "oath" that makes you think you've got a right to interfere with someone else's freedom of expression was an invalid oath to begin with.




Because actual principles, which are much more important to begin with, are often lost in concerns over symbolism. Beyond fire safety or property rights considerations, if someone wants to burn a flag, it's hard to justify much more than a shrug. Getting all worked up about someone doing so is at least somewhat petty, bordering on childish. It can even be dangerous. Why, before you know it, some people might start to think physical aggression is a valid response. Does that help clear up the confusion?




Then maybe a rearrangement of priorities is in order.

Murder?? I'm talking about non-violent petty theft...

I accept that burning the flag is a constitutionally-protected form of free expression.

The oath of service is not invalid just because you disagree with the way I choose to interpret it.

I'm not saying that keeping a flag from burning is important to anyone. It is only important to me.

I cannot control what other people do. I myself would use no violence...just a simple snatch and run.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Fade
So disagreeing with what one chooses to do with their property, in your mind, gives you the right to take it from them?

Well, in that case, I dislike how you fold your wallet, hand it over or i'll beat the **** out of you :)

Burning a flag is a distructive act meant to attack an idea...folding a wallet isn't.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I accept that burning the flag is a constitutionally-protected form of free expression.

The oath of service is not invalid just because you disagree with the way I choose to interpret it.

The oath seems pretty clear to me. You're supposed to defend the Constitution.

I'm not saying that keeping a flag from burning is important to anyone. It is only important to me.

Then defend it on your own basis, not on the basis of an oath written by someone else which would actually seem to support the opposite.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Smalso


The proper steps to take would be away from where it is taking place.

I understand your point, but IMO, leaving without attempting to stop it would be dishonorable and shameful to me. My sense of integrity would require I try something. If I failed to talk them out of it or make off with the flag, at least I would have the comfort of having tried...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
Not one thing about the Stars and Stripes, but you do swear to support and defend the Constitution. By using force to deprive someone else of their right to free expression, you would, in fact, be violating this oath.

Who said anything about using force?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
The oath seems pretty clear to me. You're supposed to defend the Constitution.

Again, I agree that flag burning is protected by the Constitution. If asked in court, I would freely admit my violation of the law.

Defending the tenets of the US Constitution is not the same as violating some specific aspect of it.

For example, I can approve of, acknowledge the importance of, and defend, the law that created speed limits while at the same time speed 10 miles over every time I get in a car.

Does that explain the distinction?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Murder?? I'm talking about non-violent petty theft...

Do you have some problem taking your logic to its natural conclusion? Let's review:


I've always said that everyone has the right to burn the US flag so long as I have to right to take steps so that it doesn't occur in my presence.

Like what?

Like taking the flag away from them.

And this is a step you think you have a "right" to take???

Not in the legal or constitutional sense, of course, but in the sense that I'll accept any and all repercussions for my actions.

So, in this same sense, you'd say that someone has a "right" to commit murder, as long as they're willing to "accept any and all repercussions" for their actions?


Now, is it your position that you have a right to commit "non-violent petty theft" or not? And if the answer is "yes", and if your rationalization for this rather bizarre viewpoint is that "I'll accept any and all repercussions for my actions", then why wouldn't that same rationalization extend to more serious acts of aggression, like murder?


The oath of service is not invalid just because you disagree with the way I choose to interpret it.

Yeah, I know. But that's not the reason I gave. To refresh your memory:

I'd say any "oath" that makes you think you've got a right to interfere with someone else's freedom of expression was an invalid oath to begin with.

That's a bit more specific than "just because you disagree with the way I choose to interpret it", wouldn't you say? And when you take that into account, then yes, it does make that oath invalid. We don't get off the hook for violating someone else's rights just because we think we're fulfilling a promise.


I'm not saying that keeping a flag from burning is important to anyone. It is only important to me.

Why?


I cannot control what other people do. I myself would use no violence...just a simple snatch and run.

Oh, well, gee, that makes it all better. By the way, do you have a plan B if your attempts to do this are met with resistance?


Burning a flag is a distructive act meant to attack an idea...folding a wallet isn't.

So what? Which part makes it a problem for you, the destructive act or the attacking of an idea? If I decided to throw darts at a poster with a big Enron logo on it, would you consider that to be sufficient justification to take either the darts or the poster from me?


Originally posted by Smalso
The proper steps to take would be away from where it is taking place.

Originally posted by Kodiak
I understand your point, but IMO, leaving without attempting to stop it would be dishonorable and shameful to me.

I'd just love to hear the critical analysis that led you to that conclusion.


My sense of integrity would require I try something.

Trying to take what doesn't belong to you is somehow less of a problem than just walking away? Where did you get your "sense of integrity" anyway, from K-Mart?


If I failed to talk them out of it or make off with the flag, at least I would have the comfort of having tried...

Do you take less comfort in respecting the rights of others?

(You're becoming exhibit A for my earlier point about principles getting lost in concerns over symbolism.)


Originally posted by shanek
Not one thing about the Stars and Stripes, but you do swear to support and defend the Constitution. By using force to deprive someone else of their right to free expression, you would, in fact, be violating this oath.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Who said anything about using force?

That would be you, when you said "Like taking the flag away from them".

Also, is there some reason you had nothing to say about shanek's observation that there is nothing in that oath about the flag?


Originally posted by shanek
The oath seems pretty clear to me. You're supposed to defend the Constitution.

Originally posted by Kodiak
Again, I agree that flag burning is protected by the Constitution. If asked in court, I would freely admit my violation of the law.

Would you be able to explain the motivation for your behavior any better than you have in this thread? And would you also claim that you had a "right" to do what you did?


Defending the tenets of the US Constitution is not the same as violating some specific aspect of it.

This is so obvious I'm not sure it's really the point you meant to make. It's about like saying that upholding the law is not the same as breaking it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by WMT1

Now, is it your position that you have a right to commit "non-violent petty theft" or not? And if the answer is "yes", and if your rationalization for this rather bizarre viewpoint is that "I'll accept any and all repercussions for my actions", then why wouldn't that same rationalization extend to more serious acts of aggression, like murder?

Again, I'm not using your version of the word "right", the legal/constitutional/judicial version...

By "right" I mean "a quality that constitutes what is honorable".

Originally posted by WMT1
That's a bit more specific than "just because you disagree with the way I choose to interpret it", wouldn't you say? And when you take that into account, then yes, it does make that oath invalid. We don't get off the hook for violating someone else's rights just because we think we're fulfilling a promise.

You're not making any sense. Who exactly is getting off the hook?

Originally posted by WMT1
Why?

I've covered that already. If you don't understand yet, I'm sorry.

Originally posted by WMT1
Oh, well, gee, that makes it all better. By the way, do you have a plan B if your attempts to do this are met with resistance?

I've covered this already also. If I tried and failed...well, at least I tried. My attempts to stop the flag burning would be completely non-violent, and stealing the flag away would be the last resort.

Originally posted by WMT1
So what? Which part makes it a problem for you, the destructive act or the attacking of an idea? If I decided to throw darts at a poster with a big Enron logo on it, would you consider that to be sufficient justification to take either the darts or the poster from me?

Your mischaracterizing my statement, which was a simple conparison of burning a flag to folding a wallet. I think even you can see that. Stop obfuscating...

Originally posted by WMT1
I'd just love to hear the critical analysis that led you to that conclusion.

I hope you've learned to live with disappointment in you life...

Originally posted by WMT1
Trying to take what doesn't belong to you is somehow less of a problem than just walking away? Where did you get your "sense of integrity" anyway, from K-Mart?

You've no concept of non-violent protest do you?

Too bad we can't all have your set of values...

Originally posted by WMT1
Do you take less comfort in respecting the rights of others?

(You're becoming exhibit A for my earlier point about principles getting lost in concerns over symbolism.)

You must be so safe and secure as you look down on me from above...

Originally posted by WMT1
That would be you, when you said "Like taking the flag away from them".

A snatch and run is hardly violent. Find some eco-terrorists or rioting anti-war protestors to sermonize to...

Originally posted by WMT1
Also, is there some reason you had nothing to say about shanek's observation that there is nothing in that oath about the flag?

I didn't, and never have disputed it...

Originally posted by WMT1
Would you be able to explain the motivation for your behavior any better than you have in this thread? And would you also claim that you had a "right" to do what you did?

Unnecessary.

Again, not a legal/constitutional/judicial right...

Originally posted by WMT1
This is so obvious I'm not sure it's really the point you meant to make. It's about like saying that upholding the law is not the same as breaking it.

Great, maybe you can explain it to Shanek if he still doesn't understand, since that was who I was responding to with that statement.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
Who said anything about using force?

You did. You said you'd take the flag from them. It was clear that you didn't mean you'd use your charm and charisma to persuade them to turn the flag over to you rather than burning it. Hence, you advocated the use of force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
For example, I can approve of, acknowledge the importance of, and defend, the law that created speed limits while at the same time speed 10 miles over every time I get in a car.

Does that explain the distinction?

No, because you're not advocating taking away cars from people who disagree with you. Your driving 10mph over the speed limit harms no one (no, speed doesn't kill, that's a government lie), but taking their property from them does.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I've covered this already also. If I tried and failed...well, at least I tried. My attempts to stop the flag burning would be completely non-violent, and stealing the flag away would be the last resort.

Except that stealing the flag is a violent act.

You've no concept of non-violent protest do you?

Non-violent protest means you don't use violence. If you take someone's flag against their will, that is a form of violence.

A snatch and run is hardly violent.

I don't know what definition of "violent" you're working under. It is violence, albeit a mild form of it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


You did. You said you'd take the flag from them. It was clear that you didn't mean you'd use your charm and charisma to persuade them to turn the flag over to you rather than burning it. Hence, you advocated the use of force.

I disagree...

Wait...change that. Technically you are correct. But when I think of "force" I think of knocking someone down, or holding them at gunpoint, not the dictionary definition of "capacity to persuade or convince - a degree of strength or energy"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek


No, because you're not advocating taking away cars from people who disagree with you. Your driving 10mph over the speed limit harms no one (no, speed doesn't kill, that's a government lie), but taking their property from them does.

Talk to WMT1 then...

He seems to understand the distinction.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shanek
Except that stealing the flag is a violent act.

Non-violent protest means you don't use violence. If you take someone's flag against their will, that is a form of violence.

I don't know what definition of "violent" you're working under. It is violence, albeit a mild form of it.

After looking up the definition, you are correct. It would be an extremely mild form of violence to snatch a flag away from someboby about to publicly burn it.

How does non-physically injurious violence sound? ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Kodiak
How does non-physically injurious violence sound? ;)

Sounds to me like you're playing with definitions to justify your position. Instead of propping on some oath as an excuse, why not justify your position based on your own personal principles?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Now, is it your position that you have a right to commit "non-violent petty theft" or not? And if the answer is "yes", and if your rationalization for this rather bizarre viewpoint is that "I'll accept any and all repercussions for my actions", then why wouldn't that same rationalization extend to more serious acts of aggression, like murder?

Originally posted by Kodiak
Again, I'm not using your version of the word "right", the legal/constitutional/judicial version...

By "right" I mean "a quality that constitutes what is honorable".

Fine. We can use whatever version of "right" you want to use. So, again, is it your position that you have a right to commit "non-violent petty theft" or not? And if your answer is "yes", and if your justification for claiming that "right" (by whatever definition) is that you would "accept any and all repercussions for my actions", then shouldn't that same rationalization apply to any other actions as well?



That's a bit more specific than "just because you disagree with the way I choose to interpret it", wouldn't you say? And when you take that into account, then yes, it does make that oath invalid. We don't get off the hook for violating someone else's rights just because we think we're fulfilling a promise.

You're not making any sense. Who exactly is getting off the hook?

Nobody. That's my point. You're still accountable when you violate someone's rights, and any "oath" you may have chosen to take doesn't give you an excuse for your behavior.



I'm not saying that keeping a flag from burning is important to anyone. It is only important to me.

Why?

I've covered that already.

The only thing you "covered" it with had to do with an oath, and we've pretty much blown that one out of the water.



I cannot control what other people do. I myself would use no violence...just a simple snatch and run.

Oh, well, gee, that makes it all better. By the way, do you have a plan B if your attempts to do this are met with resistance?

I've covered this already also. If I tried and failed...well, at least I tried. My attempts to stop the flag burning would be completely non-violent, and stealing the flag away would be the last resort.

And yet you're still okay with taking what doesn't belong to you. Why was that again? In other words, what purpose is being served by this behavior?



Burning a flag is a distructive act meant to attack an idea...folding a wallet isn't.

So what? Which part makes it a problem for you, the destructive act or the attacking of an idea? If I decided to throw darts at a poster with a big Enron logo on it, would you consider that to be sufficient justification to take either the darts or the poster from me?

Your mischaracterizing my statement, which was a simple conparison of burning a flag to folding a wallet. I think even you can see that. Stop obfuscating...

Now you're making stuff up. There is no mischaracterization, and there is no obfuscation, at least not by me. Did you use "destructive act" as a reason or not? Did you use "attack an idea" as a reason or not?

And since those are the two reasons you cited for why taking a wallet someone is about to fold is not analogous to taking a flag someone is about to burn, let me try another approach. Would you try to steal a Nazi flag away from someone who was about to burn it? If not, why not?



I'd just love to hear the critical analysis that led you to that conclusion.

I hope you've learned to live with disappointment in you life...

Participating on these boards, I'm certainly getting used to it. I'm constantly amazed at the number of adults who (particularly in a forum like this one) exhibit no sense of embarrassment whatsoever over the lack of critical thinking that seems to have gone into some of the views they express.



You've no concept of non-violent protest do you?

Yeah, and last time I checked, theft wasn't part of the equation.

Besides, I also understand the concept of protesting for silly reasons. And you don't seem to be able to come up with a single good reason for what you're calling "protest" in this case, let alone any that are strong enough to justify taking someone else's property.



Too bad we can't all have your set of values...

Maybe there's hope for you yet.



Do you take less comfort in respecting the rights of others?

(You're becoming exhibit A for my earlier point about principles getting lost in concerns over symbolism.)

You must be so safe and secure as you look down on me from above...

You know, rather than simply responding with sarcasm to the superiority of my position, maybe you should actually give some thought to reconsidering yours.



Who said anything about using force?

That would be you, when you said "Like taking the flag away from them".

A snatch and run is hardly violent.

It's close enough. Besides, if you'll take another look, the word whose use you were initially questioning was "force". Is there some reason you felt you had to change the terminology to make your response seem more reasonable? I mean, you wouldn't agree with the statement "A snatch and run is hardly force", would you?



Find some eco-terrorists or rioting anti-war protestors to sermonize to...

When some "eco-terrorists" or "rioting anti-war protestors" post their views in this forum, I'll give it some thought.

(Incidentally, do you always refer to it as "sermonizing" whenever anyone challenges rationalizations for theft?)



Also, is there some reason you had nothing to say about shanek's observation that there is nothing in that oath about the flag?

I didn't, and never have disputed it...

Nor did you acknowledge the irrelevance of that oath to the viewpoint you were trying to use it to justify earlier.



Again, I agree that flag burning is protected by the Constitution. If asked in court, I would freely admit my violation of the law.

Would you be able to explain the motivation for your behavior any better than you have in this thread? And would you also claim that you had a "right" to do what you did?

Unnecessary.

Again, not a legal/constitutional/judicial right...

How about any kind of right? One of the first things you said in this thread was "I've always said that everyone has the right to burn the US flag so long as I have to right to take steps so that it doesn't occur in my presence". So, using whatever you meant by the term at the time you posted that statement, if asked in court, would you stand by the position that you had the "right" to do what you did, or not?



Defending the tenets of the US Constitution is not the same as violating some specific aspect of it.

This is so obvious I'm not sure it's really the point you meant to make. It's about like saying that upholding the law is not the same as breaking it.

Great, maybe you can explain it to Shanek if he still doesn't understand, since that was who I was responding to with that statement.

I'll be happy to, as soon as I see anything in any of his posts to indicate such a lack of understanding.

[Smalso]

Let's see if I have this straight. If a person is burning a flag, someone who disagrees with this person's right to do so may use whatever steps necessary, including violating criminal statutes, to stop it if he/she is willing to accept the penalties for breaking those laws. Does this mean that I have the right to use force to prevent that person from interferring with a person's right to burn a flag?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Smalso
Does this mean that I have the right to use force to prevent that person from interferring with a person's right to burn a flag?

Such an act isn't even illegal, since it's considered self-defense.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by shanek


Such an act isn't even illegal, since it's considered self-defense.

I mean I as a third party. A guy tries to burn a flag. Another guy steps in to try to steal the flag away from him. I step in and shove the second guy away. Somebody who agrees with the second guy jumps in and swats me up 'side the head. Another guy steps in and blouses him one. Soon a crowd gathers and joins in on whichever side they choose. The police arrive and try to break it up. Both sides turn on the police for interfering with its right to interfere with someone trying to interfere with a guy trying to burn a flag. Following Kodiak's reasoning, everybody involved in the melee is "right" for doing what they percieved to be their duty, and the police were interfering in everybody's rights.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Smalso
I mean I as a third party.

Legally, acting in defense of others counts as self-defense.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Smalso
I mean I as a third party. A guy tries to burn a flag. Another guy steps in to try to steal the flag away from him. I step in and shove the second guy away. Somebody who agrees with the second guy jumps in and swats me up 'side the head. Another guy steps in and blouses him one. Soon a crowd gathers and joins in on whichever side they choose. The police arrive and try to break it up. Both sides turn on the police for interfering with its right to interfere with someone trying to interfere with a guy trying to burn a flag. Following Kodiak's reasoning, everybody involved in the melee is "right" for doing what they percieved to be their duty, and the police were interfering in everybody's rights. I agree.

In the end, the question is what 'right' a person has to break a law, when that specific law seems 'wrong' to the person.

Stop someone from burning a flag. Speeding on a highway. Smoking a joint. Going to Canada if drafted for Vietnam.

If I have a right to break the law under circumstances I define, I think I would logically have to accept that others can break other laws when they find it 'right'.