Can flag stomping constitute incitement to violence?

The idea, held by some, is that actions of some group which are not actively calling for violence but which anger people constitutes incitement to violence. That sounds more broad than it is, so a clear example is a KKK rally. A while back there was a KKK rally through a black neighborhood and some people in the area (mostly blacks, but also whites, hispanics, etc.) attacked the KKK. This was defended because the KKK rally itself was considered inciteful.

So what I'm asking is: IF the KKK rally constitutes incitement to violence, does flag stomping?

 

no, it's rude and unpatriotic .. but it does not incite violence ... course that doesn't mean some wont become violent, we arrest them and charge them with assault as it happens

 

Stomping old glory could and maybe should cause a tendency to violent objection, but this flag definitely should NOT.



In fact dancing on it is okay for Americans who support the 1787 constitution.

Why hasn't this difference in flags been pointed out?

 

I think it does. You're probably not going to get attacked for stomping on the flag but you also shouldn't be surprised if you are attacked. Just like your KKK example, if you are doing something to get other people riled up then you should beware because bad things can happen when tempers flare.

 

Burning bibles and Korans is legal as well, but it can incite violence. Just because some things are legal do not make it morally right to do because the whole point is to incite anger or show it. It's a form of disrespect, so yeah some people will get violent over it.

 

Flag burning incites the weak minded and emotional to violence, perhaps, but not any rational adult.

 

So you'd say that KKK rallies incite, "the weak minded and emotional to violence, perhaps, but not any rational adult"? Or do you see the two is different in this regard? Because your vote suggests that you see one as incitement to violence but not the other, and I'm curious as to why.

 

Well there is a key legal difference here. If it constitutes incitement to violence, than the offending party is to blame for the violence. So, in the case of a KKK rally that constitutes incitement to violence (which came in the form of minorities attacking the KKK members), the KKK was blamed for the attack. My point here is, by comparison, I don't see flag burning as any different. Both are protected by freedom of speech - if one can be legally condemned because of the consequences, so should the other.

Like a lot of things, my main issue here is the lack of consistency.

- - - Updated - - -

So why wouldn't you see a KKK rally in a black neighborhood the same way? I mean it's rude, may well result in violence, but if the KKK rally ends up being attacked by the minorities in the neighborhood where they march, is the KKK to blame?

 

That's vague and cryptic. Would you prefer no one knows what you're talking about? Or perhaps you could just state what you're hinting at?

 

I agree, I think the point though was if it was considered a crime, in that sense no, but it is intended to make people mad and some may become violent, regardless we still arrest the person becoming violent, not the one following the law, doesn't mean the one following the law is not socially repugnant

 

I would see it exactly the same way.... just cause the kkk does a rally in a black area doesn't mean it's a crime, it rude and repugnant, but legal just the same as long as they do not become violent or break any other laws.... if anyone is violent against them, it is they that should be arrested

now if they put a burning cross in a black mans yard, then they are breaking the law, then we would arrest them.....

same is true with the motorcycle gangs that attack the Westborro church members, they can protest the westborro members, but once they turn to violence, they become the criminals

.

 

No, I see them as equal. What I said about flag burning applies to those who resort to physicality and violence at KKK rallies as well.

 

Was it?

Isn't the entire premise then of your argument a strawman?

Whilst I do not doubt some may defend it the blanket causation/reaction statement seems to not be a rule, but rather an exception.

 

I mean I don't really think it should be a crime, free speech is free speech. But at the same time the individual knowing it is going to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off and they get hit in the mouth they don't need to act so surprised or act like they are a victim. It's like going up to some woman and her boyfriend is right there and you call her a B##$% , sure it's free speech and nobody will arrest you for it but don't cry when her boyfriend decks you in the mouth lol.

 

and the boyfriend should not cry when he is charged with assault for his crime...... do the crime, do the time

I may understand the getting upset, but I will not condone the violence and say it should be legal

.

 

It is sad that being an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and proclaiming a right to be so is a protected right. It is a ridiculous notion, and an ignorant stance to take.you push somebody to the brink and then claim to not be a cause of the violence you just created, is no different than screaming fire in a crowded theater. there is a shared responsibility in both parties actions. Nobody should be exempt from their ignorant actions that are directly responsible for creating a disturbance/dangerous situation. You want to act the fool, don't be surprised when it doesn't go your way, and someone unstable attacks you. You did it to yourself.

With that said, as long as both parties are held liable for their actions, then their is true justice.

 

If it wasn't demonstrated that the rally constituted a reasonable threat, it was a wrong decision that the rally incited the subsequent violence.

I could see how that might happen though. For example, if someone lifted up an effigy of a lynched black man to a cheering crowd that could be interpreted as a threat. The rally could be interpreted as a group of people threatening a lynching and folks might reasonably become violent in defending themselves and their neighbors from that perceived threat.



​

 

there is no excuse for violence except for self defense, if one resorts to violence, then they have to pay the price... I may not like seeing someone stomp on the flag, but I can choose to voice my opinion about it, I can not beat the guy up

now if they are on stage threatening violence, then call the cops, cause then they are committing a crime, do not beat them up as then you would be also committing a crime

as an example, the guy that burned the Qur'an.... are you saying he should of been arrested as well as any Muslim that assaulted him if he was assaulted? sure what he did was repugnant to some, but not a crime, nor should it be.... well unless he violates fire codes or something...

.

 

Yes but certainly not to the same degree. They are inciting and the actions of others is no different than someone inciting a riot. If a riot ensues, then they would be charged to a higher degree, but not necessarily to the degree of the person violently attacking them. If someone was stomping a flag and a veteran knocked them on their ass, you probably do not want me on the jury, unless both parties are held responsible for their actions.

I also agree that self defense is an acceptable use of force, and if I was on a jury I not find somebody guilty for defending their wife/children, if they are assaulted/harassed/molested in anyway.

 

I agree, your vote was just different.

I tried to word it meticulously, but can see how people would have misunderstood the way the Q was stated.

OK - your vote just said otherwise. I agree and see them in the same vein.

 

baloney. If you take your stance, suddenly what speech is going to be restricted is defined by the people willing to be most ridiculous.

OK. So the KKK march through a minority neighborhood and are attacked, and (per you, presumably) the KKK is to blame if people attack them.

OK. So some protestors on campus stomp on our flag, and (per you, presumably) they are to blame and I am blameless when I stomp their asses.

OK. So then someone gives a speech at a university advocating for Marxism, and because the anti-Marxists are so ridiculous and violent they attack people. And now (per you, presumably) the problem is Marxists wanting to talk about Marxism.

OK. Then someone gives a speech saying we should raise taxes, and those opposed become violent in response. And now (per you, presumably) the problem is people talking about raising taxes, not the individuals who became violent.



This is the problem with the "fighting words" approach you've taken: it ultimately empowers the most ridiculous and unreasonable.

 

then we would have to have blasphemy laws again and charge people with crimes for basically saying anything that upset someone else

your last sentence I agree with... as long as they did not use excessive force when defending themselves, like restraining the guy with ropes and poking his eyes with needles or chopping his eyes out or something crazy like that

.

 

I think the title threw us off "Can flag stomping constitute incitement to violence?"

as the poll question was slightly different, the answer to the title is NO, but I can see how the answer to the poll could be other.....

"If the KKK rally constitutes incitement to violence, does flag stomping also?"

my revised answer would be yes, if one does the other does..... but.... neither should be a crime

.

 

Reread what I said. I said each party is responsible to a certain degree, just like screaming fire in a theater. The KKK is purposely trying to create chaos, and a violent response if they choose to harass black folk in their own neighborhoods. Same with a college kid stomping the flag. They know what they are doing, don't pretend that they are so ignorant that they actually think their actions will not have consequences. They wanted a reaction and they got one, that is their own fault.

 

People should be free to rally their cause.