cross-posted from: https://ibbit.at/post/78177

President Donald Trump bragged that his administration “took the freedom of speech away” from protesters who burn the American flag during a rant against anti-fascists on Wednesday. While speaking about “antifa-inspired terror” in a meeting on the anti-fascist movement, Trump touted his recent executive order instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to find ways to prosecute people who burn the…

Source

From Truthout via this RSS feed

  • stankmut@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    16 hours ago

    I’m not sure why the article says the charges aren’t relating to burning the flag when the charges are about lighting the flag on fire. The charges don’t say the word flag on them, but it is the flag burning they are charging him with.

    • village604@adultswim.fanEnglish
      1·
      5 hours ago

      They’re charging him for starting a fire on federal property. The flag part is legally irrelevant to the charge.

      • stankmut@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 hours ago

        You can’t separate the two things like that. Lighting a flag on fire is political speech and the administration has said they will charge people who light the flag on fire. The fact that the thing he lit on fire on federal property was the flag is absolutely legally relevant here. It will be a major part of his defense, as they will try to argue that the law he has violated is placing an undue burden on his freedom of speech. It will be the thing the entire case hinges on.

        This is important because it’s fairly easy to make laws against all the things involved in a protest and then say “oh we aren’t charging them for protesting, we are charging them for obstructing the view by holding a sign.”

        • village604@adultswim.fanEnglish
          1·
          1 hour ago

          You can absolutely separate the two. Things don’t suddenly stop being a crime just because the flag is involved. If he had done this anywhere else other than property where it’s specifically illegal to start fires, this would be a different conversation.

          Like, I can’t go into the California woods and start a fire whenever I want, regardless of whether the thing that’s burning is the flag.

          All that being said, this is absolutely the trump administration punishing him for burning the flag, because any other president would have just ignored it.

          • brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            2·
            45 minutes ago

            No. You cannot.

            The act explicitly was done in protest. As an act of first amendment protected speech, as flag burning was explicitly determined to be by the supreme court.

            The application of these laws is purely political. Used solely because the object burned was the flag. Intent is always included in prosecuting criminal acts. It is often the determining factor in whether laws even apply.

            Burning a flag a California forest is a false equivalency. And for the most part, yes, you could go out into the forest and burn a flag. It would be stupid and you would be liable for any damages you caused if it started a wildfire. You wouldn’t be prosecuted just for burning the flag.

            The entire premise on first amendment speech applying here is super important, because if you can make it criminal to do something related, like starting a fire at all, you have, in effect, made that act of free speech illegal. This is crucial. Fundamental.