@Mekanikal Just do like we Canadians did and burn down the White House. The Declaration is ok as documents go. Buring the House down is far more satisfying though.

You know, I can respect this reply very much. The analogy is just that, similiar but different. It is hyperbole, but along with the flag burning, as we both agree, it puts things in perpective.

The tree is a slippery slope. I find permits completely appropriate because of certain situations that may arise. Say, for example, two groups book one event. One is the skin heads, and they booked their protest to meet with the black panthers... Chances are, there will be blood...

Next is an anti-gay protest/march, right into a gay activist parade (Coupled with floats and driving drag queens in little punch buggies.) This protest by the anti-gays would be completely lawful if there were no permits yet would be disasterous.

Besides, these three proved you can hold a "protest" without a permit. Just deny it is a protest.

I respect your opinion and wish we had valid freedoms in all walks of life just like you do. However, freedom is sometimes our worst enemy. People will always f-things up to where laws have to be made...

See, freedom allows you to walk past a 15 year old girl being raped and do nothing about it (Has happened in America.) It allows you to take a picture with your cell phone of a man who has been shot while trying to protect his family (Has happened.) It allows motorists to yell at someone just run over and dying to, "Get this fucking trash off the god damn road!" Freedom is the antithesis to community, sadly... But would I live anywhere else but a "free" nation? No... I just wish we had more responsibilty towards one another.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).
"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."
This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.
You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.
I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)
The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

I would also not call burning a flag speech. Burning a flag has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with private property. Using speech laws to either prevent or protect it is silly. While this is a better relationship to the context of the conversation, I still find that burning a flag is super dissimilar to passing out information on the street. While burning a flag "sends a message", that is the secondary point to the real issue of burning something (FIRE!). Burning your own house down should come under the same kind of freedom of being able to destroy your own stuff. In the city, that can get a bit more complicated, and most community agreements forbid such actions (in Texas, lean laws are vvveeeeeeerrrry strong, like jail time strong).

"I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here."

This analogies fails yet again. You can't just say "I rape you as a protest instead of rape". That isn't how things work. Rape is rape first, and whatever strange thing you want to make it second. As such, you don't NEED speech laws against rape to prevent it, it is already against the law because of force. Simply put, you can't use rape as a protest, because control over someone's body that isn't yours is not a freedom you have. In other words, you can't have rape that is a protest that isn't still criminal.

You could put the shoe on the other foot and say that all murderers are just expressing free speech...but that doesn't matter, because their other actions where illegal...case closed. I think your flag analogy is a better one, though. Even so, these couple of dudes are even more understated than even the most mild flag burning.

I think a major complication is that we have blurred the lines of what protest and speech are in all legal matters regarding them. I think your flag burring is a perfect example of that. And in post analysis I think I see the tree you are trying to climb. That since it is illegal to burn stuff like your house down, that the freedom of speech laws override that burning stuff law and make burning your flag legal. However, I think it is the opposite that is true. You can burn anything down that you want that is yours, and there are special case instances where you can't (like you are on someone elses property ect ect.)

The litmus test for most freedoms is easy. People are free to pass by, to refuse their offers. They are less obtrusive than your average commercial, billboard, or advertisement. And look to be as threatening as a basset hound with a bad hip. If you want to live in a world were people like that are criminals, fine, but I don't.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
This objection is laughable. Rape isn't against he law because of speech, its against the law because of force. Freedom for all makes the idea that freedom at the cost of one non-permissible. Your example is so nonsensical that I can't even get my head around it and hope that you use another example, because I lost you completely. (when you use an example, no matter extreme or not, it at least has to address the same issue)
And, if you are just going to be given a permit anyway, why the hoops? I will tell you why, so cops like this can harass you. This is why the first amendment exists in the absolute form it does. Because when you start giving the state arbitrary standards to regulate speak, stuff like this is inevitable. Like the FCC regulating TV shows, radio, and soon the internet (I have no doubt they will try, look at Australia). Freedom is fragile. It isn't the natural condition. It is the natural condition of man to dominate others. It is why I get so reactionary to any violation of freedoms, no matter how small.


Simple elementarty deer watsony...

There used to be a law against setting fire to an American flag. Now that law has been deemed void. However, arson can and is illegal if it is against property. You set your own house on fire as a statement and guess what? Arrested. You set a flag on fire? Nope, cannot touch you.

I fail to see how you cannot wrap your head around my argument. Rape is a force. However, rape as a protest is both protesting and using force. This is simple. Just like arson is buring the flag and free speach... There is nothing hard to understand here.

You are the one being far too broad in your assumption that CONGRESS SHALL NEVER, EVER, EVER MAKE A LAW that infringes upon any form of protest whatsoever. I am pointing out that as incorrect.

When they are buring this lard butt bigot, I'll be tilting back a cocktail or two to celebrate his death and wishing for Pat Robertson.

Gotta admire Bure's skill and play style. He did everything at full speed, which then led to an early end to his career after some nasty knee injuries. He was definitely the most exciting Canuck ever. The Canucks could sure use a game breaker like him in their current series against the Anaheim Ducks. So in the current playoff spirit *promote!

GO CANUCKS GO!

Great find. Too bad hockey videos don't garner a lot of votes on the sift. Bure was definately one of the best. He kinda pussed out though.

haha totally laughable. At the same time people are calling people idiot-conspiracy theorists, they are talking out of the other side of their mouth saying, "I do remember on 9/11 while watching the news, there was mention that one of those smaller buildings was purposely demolished."

Yeah, they went into a burning building and set up for a demo in a few hours. Ok.

----
KaiEr, what are you talking about?

"I can show you THOUSANDS of buildings, burned and destroyed, in which they didn't land all over a five mile radius. What else would you expect?"

Ok, show me THOUSANDS of burned and destroyed buildings that fell or were damaged, other than WWII type bombings, and other than controlled demolition where planning and explosives were used.

As to the 'we can possibly ever know what a plane would do' retarded argument. http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=179 (a B-25 flew into the Empire State Building in 1945)
"Investigation showed that the structural integrity of the Empire State Building was not compromised by this accident" ... "engulfed an an explosion of flaming, high-octane fuel. The burning gasoline traveled through hallways, stairwells, and elevator shafts, reaching as far as four floors below the point of impact as the building shook." ... "One of the bomber's engines completely penetrated the Empire State Building, and fell from the opposite side. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and severed the cable of an elevator car" ... "impact left a hole in the north face of the Empire State Building eighteen feet wide by twenty feet high."

So sure, smaller plane, but only by half and maybe four times as much fuel.

How about actual physics simulations of the crash? Is that to conspiracy for you? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020911072432.htm "At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

Now they refuse to do that simulation for the WTC, and only simulated concrete columns, but again, have you seen the core of the WTC? It is no steel skin, or under-designed building. No amount of fuel could have damaged the core, which phonecalls from inside the WTC would imply the fires were not that hot.

Anyways, instead of THOUSANDS of buildings, just show me one steel building that was brought down by a fire buring inside. In just hours. Just one building.