I accept your heartfelt apology. I know you've researched it and discovered that "fighting words" are not protected speech and burning a flag under some circumstances is certainly that. Inciting to riot might be another reason.
Gosh. And what is the threshold for what constitutes a "fighting word", as opposed to a word which, while challenging to people's temperament, is not truly pugilistic?
Incitement to riot? No. Incitement to riot is the intentional encouragement of a mob to do what a mob is already inclined to do. Expressing a thought that people find distasteful, whether through spoken words, written words, symbols, or non-violent action, is merely that: expressing a thought. If a collection of people who witness an expression of thought are so lacking in basic discipline as to be utterly unable to bear the thought of
not rioting, then they're not mature enough to be out on the streets without their mommies.
I also know from your grad school work in philosophy that "legislating thought" is not the same as legislating action. Governments certainly have not just the power but the responsibility to legislate action, either positive or negative.
I like the subtle
ad hominem suggestion that my education (or, as you cleverly imply, lack of it) somehow affects the validity of my argument. That was very well-played. However, since you (by your own implication, else it would have been hypocritical for you to denigrate my own background) speak from the high ground of graduate-level philosophical education, perhaps you can enlighten those of us given to mere pedestrian thought:
How are speech (a physical action that expresses meaning via auditory medium), writing (a physical action that expresses meaning via visual medium) and sign language (a physical action that expresses meaning via visual medium) protected as sacrosanct, while flag-burning, (a physical action that expresses meaning via visual medium) is not protected?
Perhaps, since this issue is beyond my limited ability to grasp, you will limit your explanation to the last two examples (sign language and flag-burning), since they are both examples of
actions that express a thought.
Oh, and in case you missed it, I was not suggesting that there are laws that prohibit particular thoughts. I was talking about the fact that legislation exists that regulates action based solely upon what the perpetrator was
thinking. If an action is illegal under any and all circumstances, freedom of thought is preserved; the action itself is the prohibited thing. But when an action is legal under some circumstances, and illegal under others, and the only thing that divides one set of circumstances from the other is what the perpetrator was
thinking...well, then. It's
not the action that's being regulated...it's the thought behind the action. But one of august thought will have already grasped that basic semantic distinction.
Also your advanced work in American history has no doubt revealed that there has been legislation on flag etiquette for quite some time. During most of that time no one's freedom of expression was stifled because he couldn't burn an American flag. You are also well aware that political discourse was generally on a higher level and people enjoyed more freedom in those years, not less.
Again with the
ad hominem. Impressive. I'll give you another bit of gratuitous Latin:
ad nauseam. Feel free to stop impugning my level of education at any time, until such time as you actually have some knowledge of it.
Yes, there has been legislation on flag etiquette for some time. There has been legislation on many subjects for many years. Are you going to now fall back on the tired "it's against the law, it must be bad" canard? I can think of plenty of
malum prohibitum activities we could also discuss.
No one's freedom is curtailed when they intrinsically have no desire or ability to do the thing that is prohibited. Few people would get bent out of shape if there were a law against levitation, because few people have the desire to try, and fewer still have the ability to accomplish it. And yet, were someone to actually
do it, would it be wrong for them to have done so? Just because it was prohibited? Just because the fact that they had flew in the face of everything that the people watching believed about physics?
For the remainder of this debate, Rabbi, I would appreciate it if you would limit your discourse to the subject at hand, and not cover the weakness of your position by casting aspersions at me and my education, however carefully you cloak them in sarcasm.
If you can't argue the topic on its merits alone, take your toys and go home.
-BrokenPaw
