Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
burning is an act of intimidation or antagonizing a targeted group.
As I stated on before: It's simply a more aggressive and symbolic part of free speechI wouldn't want to see someone burn a a flag either. You can call it free speech, but you had better also acknowledge that it is incinerary in nature.
My answer would be:
no, it isnt, as burning things is no speech
Burning the Bible or the Torah or the Koran - is this an example for free speech?
Answers:
yes, it is
no, it isnt, as burning things is no speech
undecided
It is unnecesary that is for certain. You can disagree without the burning and symbolism.
Verbally or in written form disagreeing with those things and what they stand for is free speech burning is an act of intimidation or antagonizing a targeted group.
No one is against free speech just arson. I agree let the talk or write whatever they want.Antagonizing a targeted group can invoke a response from the targeted group that changes the world for the better. You guys think too small. Free speech isn't only about freedom. It also creates an environment that allows the dumbest ideas to die and the best ideas to thrive. Without allowing people to share the dumbest ideas you are allowing a whole plethora of good ideas to never exist. Restricting free speech or creating an environment that free speech is restricted is like an idea abortion. If you prevent these good ideas from existing then we are stuck with the bad ones that currently exist. You should give the people with bad ideas megaphones not prison sentences. You guys are so shallow and have a pure hatred in your soul for free speech because you don't understand its potential.
defended by those who are serious about protecting the First Amendment.
No one is against free speech just arson. I agree let the talk or write whatever they want.
It's easy to impulsively say "they shouldn't be able to say that," so we have to step back and look at the bigger picture.It is awkward to defend free speech. That's why nobody does it. It is a good idea in theory, but who is going to defend it?
Terrible, awful, horrible, disgusting, filthy, rotten, distasteful, and repugnant speech is the only type of speech that needs any protection. So basically if you defend free speech to the average ignoramus it appears you are defending what the speaker said and they ignore the fact that you are fighting for free speech. Let's just agree that the founding fathers were using some mild hallucinogenic medications when writing the constitution.
The 2nd amendment, the 3rd amendment, and the 4th amendment are even more unrealistic than the 1st amendment. It took me 43 years to realize this. I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in reality under the rule of cruel humans who run the legal entity named, "The United States of America". I wish America existed but it simply doesn't. Reality hits you hard. The constitution is not respected by those in power. Those in power have to appease the masses. The masses are dumb as dirt and hate American principles.