Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting Flag Burning, Cashless Bail
Another cashless bail EO applied to Washington, D.C., which also aims to end unwarranted pretrial release.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on flag burning and cashless bail:
Flag Burning
Trump said (yes, he mentions the 1989 SCOTUS ruling):
TRUMP: They’re burning flags all over the world. They burn the American flag. And as you know, through a very sad court, I guess it was a five to four decision. They called it freedom of speech. But there’s another reason, which is perhaps much more important. It’s called death. Because what happens when you burn a flag is the area goes crazy. If you have hundreds of people, they go crazy. You can do other things. You can burn this piece of paper, you can and it’s but when you burn the American flag, it incites riots at levels that we’ve never seen before. People go crazy in a way, both ways. There are some that are going crazy for doing it. There are others that are angry, angry about them doing it. Do you want to discuss that?
ASSISTANT: Sure what the executive order does, sir, it charges your Department of Justice with investigating instances of flag burning and then where there’s evidence of criminal activity that where prosecution wouldn’t fall afoul of the First Amendment, and instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute those who are engaged in these instances of flag burning.
TRUMP: What the penalty is going to be, if you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits, no nothing. You get one year in jail. If you burn a flag, you get and what it does is incite to riot. I hope they use that language, by the way, did they?
ASSISTANT: Incite to riot.
TRUMP: And you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. You don’t get 10 years. You don’t get one month. You get one year in jail, and it goes on your record, and you will see flag burning, stopping immediately, just like when I signed the statute and monument act, 10 years in jail. Have you heard any of our beautiful monuments? Everybody left town, they were gone. Never had a problem after that. It’s pretty amazing. We stopped it.
But this is something that’s, I don’t know, in a certain way, it’s equally as important. Some people say it’s more important because the people in this country don’t want to see our American flag burned and spit on and by people that are, in many cases, paid agitators. They’re paid by the radical left to do it. You talk to these people, they don’t even know. Half of them don’t even know what they’re doing. They say, “I don’t know. They gave me money to do this.” I see the same things that you did. They’re bad people. They’re trying to destroy a nation that’s not working because I think our nation now is the most respected nation anywhere in the world by far.
You saw that with the European leaders on Friday, you saw that with NATO, where they agreed to go from 2% no pay to 5% fully paid up, trillions of dollars paid, where they respect your president to a level that they jokingly call me the President of Europe. They call me the president of Europe, which is an honor. I like Europe, and I like those people. They’re good people, they’re great leaders. And we’ve never had a case where seven plus, really, 28 essentially, 35-38 countries were represented here the other day, 38 European countries, were European, and other countries were represented. And it was a great meeting.
But your country is respected again.
I say it all the time. One year ago, our country was dead. Everybody said it. We had a dead country. We were not going to survive. Now we have the hottest country anywhere in the world. So it’s an honor to be involved, and this group has a lot to do with it right behind me.
President Donald J. Trump signs an Executive Order to restore respect, pride, and sanctity to the American flag, and prosecute those who desecrate this symbol of our freedom, identity, and strength. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/wG54eULeGh
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 25, 2025
The order won’t stand, even with the language “inciting a riot.” If you can prove the people had the intent to incite a riot, then charge them with that.
The order says: “Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to ‘fighting words’ is constitutionally protected.”
So, here’s the thing. I don’t know if other language in the EO will force the courts to uphold the EO.
The executive order makes it clear that it is meant to stop people from burning the flag, not to stop inciting riots.
In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that the First Amendment protects flag burning:
Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia joining the majority. “[Lee] Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,” said Brennan. “Nor does the State’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.”
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing a concurrence, spelled out his reasoning succinctly.
“The hard fact is that sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result,” Kennedy said. “And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision. This is one of those rare cases.”
Cashless Bail
In a press release, the White House described cashless bail as “a government-backed crime spree.”
“It is therefore the policy of my Administration that Federal policies and resources should not be used to support jurisdictions with cashless bail policies, to the maximum extent permitted by law,” according to the EO.
Another cashless bail EO applied to Washington, D.C., which also aims to end unwarranted pretrial release:
(a) To prevent the release of dangerous suspects based on cashless bail policies, relevant Federal law enforcement agencies and officials who are members of the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force established in Executive Order 14252 of March 27, 2025 (Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful), shall work to ensure that arrestees in the District of Columbia are held in Federal custody to the fullest extent permissible under applicable law, and shall pursue Federal charges and pretrial detention for such arrestees whenever possible, consistent with applicable law, to ensure that criminal defendants who pose a threat to public safety are not released from custody prior to trial.
(b) Further, the Attorney General shall review the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) General Orders and other policies and practices of the MPD to identify those that may result in pretrial release of criminal defendants who pose a threat to public safety and, consistent with section 740 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (Public Law 93-198), shall request that the Mayor of the District of Columbia make such updates and modifications to such orders and policies as the Attorney General determines would be necessary to address the crime emergency and help to ensure public order and safety.
President Donald J. Trump signs an Executive Order taking steps to eliminate so-called "cashless bail" in Washington, D.C. pic.twitter.com/rWfYzwA8Ma
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 25, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It’s the asshole wing of MAGA. It’s a large and self-righteous group but basically morons.
You can get arrested and serve time for burning a pride flag. Fair trade…both side get to burn flags. By the way…..project much?
I have to wonder if this is a back door attempt at getting those sentences and prosecutions for burning pride flags (and various others) overturned. It would fit with the Trump technique of doing something to get the leftist nuts to stampede into a political position he wants by making a token opposition to it, then “caving” into a position he wanted in the first place. And if I recall correctly, most of the flag-burnings happen in pure blue enclaves under state laws, so how sweet it would be to have the blue nuts in this position:
Nuts: We demand to make flag burning legal!
Us: But you put these people in jail for doing it (long list)
Nuts: That’s (splutter) different!!
If you’re referring to the guy in Iowa, he stole the flag and thus by burning another’s property he committed arson
Arson does not require private property. Public fires are also arson and should be treated as such unless a permit or local ordinance permits it.
I’d love to see local ordinances be required by elected politicians that say you can get a permit to burn flags. That should go over well with the electorate in all but the most blue zones.
Arson does require property, and it can’t be your own unless your motive is insurance fraud. Burning your own flag in an unsafe manner will be an offense against the fire code, but it won’t be arson. And burning your own flag in a safe manner, in full compliance with all fire regulations, is inherently legal and can’t be made illegal.
And this is exactly the same no matter what flag it is. There is nobody who has ever been convicted of burning their own Pride flag in a safe manner.
No, you cannot. Not anywhere in the USA, so long as it’s your flag. Obviously you can be arrested for burning someone else’s flag, but that works exactly the same no matter whether it’s a USA flag or a Pride flag or anything else.
Actually, no. That just goes to show how much our society has degenerated, when the rainbow banner is 1. protected and 2. equated in any way with The American Flag. The rainbow banner is a fictitious entity that symbolizes sexual deviance. It has no place on any official building or in any government office, and deserves no special protection. It’s not even representative of an actual organization or club like The Boy Scouts or a Mardi Gras crewe. The Stars & Stripes is the flag of a nation, that is carried into battle, and covers the coffins of soldiers who died in combat. There are rules and protocols for how it is raised, displayed, lowered and folded. It stands to reason that the rules should include that it can’t be publicly degraded or burned.
There are a lot of us veterans who don’t like people burning the American flag. We understand the Supreme Court ruling. We also understand the First Amendment.
Doesn’t mean we have to like the act when we see it.
You should be glad we feel this way because that kind of loyalty can’t be bought or corrupted.
You might want to keep that in mind when you cast aspersions on people and their motives…..
Not a veteran myself and I would never burn the US flag. That being said, I like flag burning, it helps a certain class of people self identify more easily.
I suspect that this is what the executive order is about. In a political environment where the Democrats will support anything so long as it opposes Trump, he just came out in favor of not burning flag. So what do you think the Democrats are going to do in response? And just how do you think the non-insane voting public is going to react when they see a bunch of activists burning the American flag to protest Trump?
Right, you don’t like it, but that’s been pretty much burned in with the training.
Andy Rooney on claims of veterans: The veterans already got what they deserve, a free country.
I’m not sure where you get this stuff, but no, it has nothing to do with being burned in with training.
That’s a very simplistic way of looking at the issue.
I received zero political indoctrination during training. There was never a mention of the Constitution, patriotism, politics, and no classes or instruction on anything remotely similar except for the briefest introduction to the UCMJ. The training I received was strictly in military tactics and techniques, and in specific technical knowledge about weapons, communications equipment, vehicles, etc, and other soldierly arts. Indoctrination may have been part of Rooney’s experience in WW II, but by the early to late 1970s, no such thing occurred in the training of the rank and file.
No marching?
In reply to rhhardin:
Marching is meant to inculcate discipline by the immediate implementation of orders (otherwise chaos ensues) and practice working as a team or group. It’s a holdover when marching served the tactical purpose of deploying soldiers on the field of battle. It has nothing to do with indoctrination. Marching is apolitical. Anyone can march together with others, regardless of their individual personal political/religious beliefs. Marching together influences nobody’s beliefs as they remain intact after being drilled in marching.
I recall little to no political talk of any kind among soldiers, even when off duty and among actual friends (and not just members of the same unit). Most soldiers just didn’t seem to care about politics. I certainly cared no more and no less about politics than as my father had influenced me*, and voted as I would have had I not been in the service.
*I later influenced my father with libertarianism and awareness of subjects such as globalism and the dangers of paper money. I, like my father, was a proponent of interventionism. I have long since matured and become an advocated for non-interventionism (like Trump – Trump is not an “isolationist” as he is usually labeled by the MSM).
Fun question:
When leading a unit of marching soldiers, the formation’s commander gives orders in two parts – a preparatory command (that both alerts the marchers that an order is coming and informs them of the order they are to execute) and the order of execution (precisely when to execute the order, as many orders must be given so that it is executed with the proper foot, such as when turning). Sample orders are “Foward – march” and “Column left – march).
Now, imagine you’re marching and realize the front rank is about to march off a cliff and there’s not enough time to issue a two-part command to prevent them from doing so (with the rest of the unit following them if you don’t stop them at all). What one-word command can you give that will stop them in their tracks?
See the answer in a comment below.
@rhhardhead:
“No marching?”
Tell me you don’t know jack shit about the military without actually saying you don’t know jack shit about the military.
You really are a clown.
“become an advocated for non-interventionism (like Trump – Trump is not an “isolationist” as he is usually labeled by the MSM).”
I like to say: Isolationist is a slur invented by imperialists to denigrate non-interventionists.
Well said.
Ok come down to the local VFW in a rural County on a Saturday early evening and burn the US Flag. You are using your actions to ‘express your opinion’ and the assembled Combat Veterans will have the opportunity to use their actions to ‘express their opinions’. No one will have their ‘expressive actions’ censored by Gov’t nor would there be any ‘retaliation’ by the Gov’t for either action which might create a ‘chilling effect’. Seems fair.
What has the flag to do with combat operations?
They drilled something in. But that’s what drills are for.
I see you failed to take him up on his offer.
I only deny that the flag shows patriotism. Look elsewhere.
The flag is handy for a stealth ham radio antenna, as HOAs are afraid to prohibit them. I think they’re marketed commercially made too. Those are hams wanting a pole in the yard.
Yup. quote, Notice patriotism mentioned.
$ 299.95
Stealth flagpole (SFP) antenna system is intended to function as both an antenna and flagpole. Some locations prohibit the installation of an antenna but may permit the installation of a flagpole. An American flag may be mounted on top of the flagpole as proof of its patriotic function.
Operates on 3.5 – 55 MHz
No tuner required; SWR ≤2:1 …
Hardin:
“It’s the asshole wing of MAGA. It’s a large and self-righteous group but basically morons.”
This is how you started this entire thread. Show me your denial.
Why do you insist on avoiding the main points and always seem to seek to redirect the conversation when challenged?
Come down to your a rural County VFW and ask the question when you finish burning the US Flag. I feel certain you’ll get an answer… though you may find it to be uncomfortable and frankly non responsive to your inquiry but it will be an answer.
It will not be an answer, it will be a crime. And it will 100% justify his disdain for such vexilatry.
The crime will be the obvious incitement to violence which inarguably would have succeeded in provoking the intended response by the flag burner.
I’d say it makes you unqualified to even be an American, just as a Muslim thinking that execution is justified for cartooning the prophet. What makes somebody an American? It’s the rulebook, the Constitution, rules about how we treat each other, ultimately. If you agree to those rules, you’re an American, even if you’re not. If you don’t agree to them, then you’re not an American, even if you are.
Assaulting a flag burner, or even one who says that flag burning is an important option, suggests you’re as unpatriotic as it gets. Enforce your political view with violence and saying it’s patriotic. That’s the moron view, as suggested up top.
It’s as if you’re choosing flag and no Constitution over Constitution and no flag. Just as there was no flag in 1776, I imagine.
That is not incitement to violence, it’s the heckler’s veto. “Incitement” and “provocation” are two different and opposite concepts.
Exactly.
Again, this is exactly correct.
rhhardin/Milhouse
Now apply your same logic to the 2A and those people, politicians and jurisdictions which consistently violate it.
You’ve both agreed those folks are not Americans b/c they reject that provision of the Constitution. Therefore an vote they cast for politicians, every statute passed by those politicians is moot…b/c you’ve agreed they ain’t ‘Americans’ by which presumably you mean Citizens.
If you want to quibble and say no you mean something more like ‘adopting and adhering to the basic philosophy and minimal threshold beliefs of what it means to be an American’ then follow through on this belief which significantly alters ‘birthright citizenship’ b/c now you’re admitting that mere physical presence and potential for arrest isn’t enough to meet ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ threshold.
Chief, don’t be silly. Of course US citizens who reject everything the USA stands for are still citizens. They’re just not “American”. And aliens who love everything about the USA are “American” in every sense that matters, but they’re not citizens.
It’s the same as being Jewish. Someone born Jewish is a Jew no matter what he believes, but if he rejects everything the Torah stands for he’s not a “Jewish Jew”. Meanwhile someone who believes in and loves the Torah but was not born Jewish and did not have a legally valid conversion is a very “Jewish” gentile, but a gentile nonetheless.
As rhhardin correctly put it, “If you agree to those rules, you’re an American, even if you’re not. If you don’t agree to them, then you’re not an American, even if you are.” Did you miss those bits that I just italicized?
It’s the difference between feelings and law. Law doesn’t care about feelings.
No, it does not. They have the right to express their negative opinions of flag burning — verbally. They have no right in the world to do so with violent actions. If that happens they will be evil criminals and it will be the government’s sacred duty to arrest and prosecute them all, and demand the maximum penalty, just as it was the duty of the government to do so to BLM rioters. Refusing to do so would be as contemptible as it was when Dem prosecutors refused to do it to BLM rioters.
So long as the advocates for flag burning don’t stray into physical action and merely verbalize their advocacy for flag burning then it will remain a free and open exchange of ideas. Once they engage an physical conduct, lighting something on fire, which incites violence that’s no longer protected speech.
Like it or not (I mostly do not) our Justice System has become highly politicised. Wish every Jurisdiction still had Sheriffs, DA, Judges and Juries that clung to the notion of blind, impartial Justice. That’s been out the door most of my adult life. If Jurisdiction X chooses one path and Jurisdiction Y chooses another path for similar crimes ..well ultimately that’s a reflection of the underlying ‘Will of the People’ as reflected in their electoral choices for those positions. Unless we remove all discretion from LEO, DA, Judges about whether to charge, what to charge, whether to prosecute, whether to offer a plea deal, whether to accept/approve the plea deal, and all discretion over sentencing so that conviction of X crime automatically carries Y prison term…then there will be differing opinions about the outcomes of our Judicial process.
That is wrong and repugnant. The freedom of expression covers all forms of expression, including expressive action. It does not cover the non-expressive aspects of such actions. Burning a USA flag, or a nazi flag, is both protected speech and unprotected action; if the action would be prosecuted if it were a nazi flag then and only then it may also be prosecuted if it’s a USA flag. Likewise if you would prosecute someone for beating someone who burned a nazi flag, then you must also prosecute them if it’s a US flag.
Opinions vary. For example I find burning the US Flag to be grossly offensive and presumptively an act intended to incite. Most people agree as polls consistently show. It seems the majority of the ‘American people’ are not Americans by your definition.
For that matter I find it odd, as a Disabled Veteran with over 40+ months in ground combat operations on multiple continents, to have my patriotism questioned. When y’all had the opportunity to demonstrate your love of Nation during the two decade GWOT or hell Vietnam if you’re of that generation did you choose to do so in military service at war?
If you didn’t volunteer when the opportunity arose, even as a USO volunteer to hand out coffee, I’d say you might want to consider not choosing to question the patriotism of those who demonstrated their love of Nation through hardship, sacrifice and risk of life/injury in actual service to the Nation.
Chief, it doesn’t matter what you find offensive. It doesn’t matter what 90% of people might find offensive. You have no right to beat someone for burning a US flag, and you have no right to allow others to do so. If you are a policeman or a prosecutor you have a duty to prevent such a beating, and if you choose not to because you were offended then you’re worse than the burner, because you’re burning the actual constitution, not merely a symbol.
The flag is not the country, just as the map is not the territory. Confusing a symbol with the thing it stands for is pretty much the definition of idolatry.
A favorite on symbol and thing
What is an idol?
An idol is a useless sacrifice, said Isaiah.
But how do you know which ones are useless? asked the nation in its genius.
Isaiah pondered the various ways he could answer this.
Immense chunks of natural reality fell out of a blue sky and showers of light upon his mind.
Isaiah chose the way of metaphor.
Our life is a camera obscura, said Isaiah, do you know what that is?
Never heard of it, said the nation.
Imagine yourself in a darkened room, Isaiah instructed.
Okay, said the nation.
The doors are closed, there is a pinhole in the back wall.
A pinhole, the nation repeated.
Light shoots through the pinhole and strikes the opposite wall.
The nation was watching Isaiah, bored and fascinated at once.
You can hold up anything you like in front of that pinhole, said Isaiah,
and worship it on the opposite wall.
Why worship an image? asked the nation.
Exactly, said Isaiah.
Anne Carson
Milhouse
Feelings? You and rhhardin seem pretty riled up about this issue and the foreseeable consequences in some jurisdictions however regrettable they may be. I’m sure you wouldn’t wish to use your emotional imbalance as an excuse to second guess the prosecutorial discretion of rural DA in choosing whether and whom to charge. If NYC can repeatedly infringe upon the 2A and y’all put up with it even after NYC ignores SCOTUS ruling in Bruen then rural areas can restrict flag burning.
Idolatry? My goodness. Symbolism sure but not idolatry.
if its their own flag they can do what they want with it ..hurting others feelings should not be punishable even though woky has made it so
AND KNOCK THE CR AP OFF WITH BUYING INTO COMPANIES LIKE INTEL etc
not the governments place
maga means just that
Funny thing about government having at least some control of private companies. isn’t that called… Fascism?
I must disagree. Fascism is a philosophy of governance that puts the state above all else. Ownership and direction of the means of production is communism. Strictly, Trump is only changing the government/business relationship with respect to ownership, which by itself can’t be linked (I don’t believe) to any particular system of government or philosophy of governance. He also is not proposing a shift in policy that places the state above the people, so it’s not fascism. (Socialism requires government control of the means of production, while ownership remains private.)
“The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism that denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State… If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.”
Benito Mussolini
2 sides of the same coin
governments “influence” in anything other than the military courts treasury
is a road best left untraveled by those who want and DESERVE as much freedom in their lifetime that they can handle
No it’s not even close. There has always been some measure of control over production in civilized societies.
No, there has not. The idea of such control should be anathema to anyone who claims to be on the right.
But I don’t see a 10% stake as control. I’m uncomfortable with it, unless it’s entrusted to financial managers whose only mandate is to treat it the same way they would do with a pension fund, but at the end of the day it’s only 10%.
thats exactly what its called
Flag etiquette is a military thing, not a civilian thing. The military drill individuality out of you in favor of team activity, and one of the easiest ways to train it is strict rules over something meaningless. Taking it seriously though does not make it serious, anyway if you’re not in the military where it has consequences.
You want citizens to be the opposite. Flag burning is a way to say that.
Archie Bunker “The flag is for football games and patriotic things like that.” Or words to that effect. Football games being patriotic was the joke.
but as we have seen archie turned out to be correct in sooo many cases
while meathead ..has to flee their own world they helped to create
It’s protected activity. What Trump should help are those arrested for burning Pride flags. A flag is a flag and we can do what we want to them. I don’t like seeing the American flag burned but you shouldn’t be prosecuted for burning it. Same for any other flag.
Agreed. SCOTUS says (American) flag burning is protected as a form of political speech. This standard should hold for the burning of any flag in protest of that for which it stands. Burning a pride flag can’t be a hate crime, as it isn’t a crime (or at least shouldn’t be considered one) to burn a flag.
No one has been arrested or prosecuted for burning their own Pride flag. No one has been treated more harshly for burning a Pride flag than they would be for doing the same to a USA flag.
Dave, the same standard does hold. Burning your own Pride flag is not a crime, and has never been treated as such, and has therefore of course never been treated as a hate crime.
Burning someone else’s Pride flag is a crime, and since it’s usually motivated by hatred on the basis of sexual orientation it’s a hate crime in most jurisdictions.
Burning someone else’s USA flag is also a crime. It can also be a hate crime if it’s motivated by hatred for USAn people rather than for the USA itself, and it’s in a jurisdiction where national origin is one of the criteria defined in the hate crime statutes.
As to cashless bail, why couldn’t these criminal loving places just require a minimum amount like $100, in effect giving Trump the finger?
Who is advising Trump on this flag burning issue?
It’s been decided, decades ago
Stopping people from burning flags is not the point. Provoking Democrats into burning flags at their protests is the point.
He loses me on this one. Free speech should be as close to absolute as possible.
Burning something is not speech. Otherwise, you could burn baby dolls outside of an abortion clinic…see how well that goes over for you.
Yes, burning something to express an opinion is absolutely speech. There is no possible question about this. And yes, you are free to burn baby dolls outside an abortion clinic, so long as you obey the fire code and don’t obstruct the entrance or harass those going in and out.
SCOTUS has consistently and firmly upheld the right to demonstrate outside abortion clinics, while also upholding the state’s right to keep such demonstrations a reasonable distance from the entrance, meaning far enough away that you’re not in people’s faces, but close enough that they can clearly hear you and receive your message. Buffer zones that are too big for that to happen are unconstitutional and have always been struck down.
The only flag you can burn in the US is the US flag. Anything else gets you charged with a hate crime. If you hate the country so much that you want to burn the US flag as protest, maybe you’re in the wrong country.
This is true, but, as conservatives, we have to be better than the Dhimmi-crats and not stoop to their infantile and obnoxiously totalitarian level.
So, yes, burning Old Glory is obnoxious, provocative, etc., and, it should be vociferously condemned, but, as principled conservatives who value free speech and liberty, we should be sufficiently consistent to understand that promoting free speech encompasses speech/acts which we don’t agree with or like.
I’d rather see it burned than stomped on.
There is no “this is true but…”. You’re not a principled conservative, you’re a RINO Never-Trumper who is clutching his pearls.
Mr. Trump is not stooping to the level of Democrats. He’s demonstrating to them the error of their ways. That demonstration needs to rise to the level of “biblical” or else when the Democrats return to power, they’ll engage in activities far worse than during the Biden administration.
Let the Democrats (and pearl-clutchers like you) protest, and then point out that if burning an American flag is protected, so is burning a pride flag.
The First Amendment protects speech widely. However, effectively it protects only offensive speech. Inoffensive speech doesn’t require protection.
‘….as conservatives we have to be better than the d/prog and not stoop to their level….’
Tell me you lost the culture wars and how the d/prog victories came to be without telling me.
Old school ‘Conservatives’ have not done a very good job of conserving our shared cultural traditions, our societal mores, our civic virtues nor much of anything. Primarily b/c they often refuse to carry the fight to our opponents and insist on non enforceable codes of conduct while allowing our opponents to capitalize on this grossly foolish idealism. First win the battle then impose your will on the losers. IOW Vea Victis but not until you are victorious, which the d/prog wokiesta leftists have been. See Trans ideology in grade schools, see LGBTIA+ see DEI/CRT, heck look at the all the work LI’s own Equal Protection Project is doing to reverse decades of culture war …not even losses but more like abandonment of the battlefield by ‘conservatives’ refusing to get their hands dirty in a knife fight in the gutter brawl that defines how the d/prog wokiestas approach every culture war fight.
That doesn’t mean arrest them for burning the US Flag directly but for other associated actions. Got a parade permit? Got a fire permit? Nope? Then this is an unlawful assembly of a mob. Disperse immediately. Didn’t do so? Resistance to LEO w/o Violence. Demand their ID. Refused? Add failure to ID. Arrest them all. Run their fingerprints find any outstanding warrants, parole violations, immigration violations.
Alternatively allow counter protest to ‘express their opinion’ via actions…oops LEO showed up too late and that guy burning the flag got curb stomped. Very sad but opinions vary and clearly the flag burning guy incited mob violence so we gotta charge him with incitement.
That is not the definition of incitement, and such a definition would make the laws against incitement unconstitutional.
Uh huh. Well I’m sure that eventually he may have the charge dismissed but pretrial detention gonna be a long for all those appeals.
There will be no pretrial detention. The charge is unconstitutional on its face, and the first judge to get a look at it would be required to dismiss it. And the prosecutor should be reported for sanctions.
Now apply the same flippant claim to the 2A and Heller, McDonald and Bruen to NYC and NY State.
Golly gee whiz it seems the first judge didn’t just say declare those 2A infringements to be unconstitutional on their face and require NYC and State to stop trying to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on 2A rights.
This can’t be enforced in a non-value-neutral manner. If you don’t treat demonstrations you like the same way, you can’t treat the ones you don’t like that way.
Who said anything about not enforcing them equally? Not me. If we have a law on the books it should be enforced consistently if not then it should be stricken.
Then it’s got nothing to do with the US flag. If you enforce the fire code equally no matter what is being burned, then why even mention that it was a US flag?
To point out alternative, indirect means of applying consequences for the act of burning the Flag outside the claims of 1A which are available to be employed. Lots of ways to skin the cat and just b/c someone claims 1A doesn’t mean it provides immunity for otherwise unlawful acts.
That is not true at all. It’s an outright lie and those who claim it is so are liars. Burning a flag is treated exactly the same way regardless of what it is; if it’s your flag you’re free to burn it in a manner that complies with the fire code. If it’s someone else’s flag, and the owner objects to you burning it, then it’s a crime, and if it’s motivated by hatred on the basis of one of the grounds specified by state or local law then it’s a hate crime.
Note that there are no such things as “protected groups” under anti-discrimination laws or hate crime laws. Only protected grounds. A crime motivated by hatred of the victim’s actual or perceived race is a hate crime regardless of what that race is. And in jurisdictions where the hate crime laws include sexual orientation, a crime motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived sexual orientation is a hate crime regardless of what that orientation is. There is nowhere in the USA where it is a hate crime to beat someone because he’s black, but not because he’s white. Nowhere. And ever since such laws were first enacted they have been routinely used against black people for crimes motivated by the victim being white.
Side note. Trump just made the left defend burning the US flag. It’s too easy to set them off.
Trump just made the right defend burning the flag. A scission that’s always been on the right.
This is what I took from it as well.
John and Ken (1997) KFI Los Angeles takes on the forced pledge of allegiance and public patriotism generally. The first ten minutes are a set-up call, boring, and then they take on angry calls from patriots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIFcrB8oR1k
Ahh, yes. The Pledge. Written by a socialist. i am so old I remember the real pledge.
glad someone else remembers the socialist part
but people fall for anything and lefty wins again
Yes. The Bellamy cousins, Edward and Francis. A pair of socialist propagandists. And I’m fairly certain that had Trump been around in their day he would have been a Bellamyite.
SCOTUS ruled its legal if you own the flag, and its not happening in public space. Burning your own flag in public space like street might get you in trouble, because its misuse of public space.
Same rules should apply for other flags. It shouldn’t be considered hate crime to burn rainbow flag, BLM flag, whatever flag.
How about peeling out on a rainbow colored crosswalk?
IMO the street is for vehicle traffic and subject to that related wear and tear. Lawyer up with free legal counsel and appear to SCOTUS for the win.
*appeal
The win? The lawfare against you is not exactly a win until you get vindication (if you do even win as things could change for the worse).
Is this about florida case? He turned himself in and had to write 25 page essay, and got probation with fine for operating vehicle in reckless manner.
It wasn’t worth it for him to spend years appealing to SCOTUS on the flag issue. But there could be argument that by painting the flag on the street they knowingly exposed it to potential wear and tear of the street. Which is inherently different from painting on side of building, or flying from flag pole.
Of course it is, and no one disputes that. No one has ever even thought of charging someone for normal wear and tear, or for making a legitimate emergency stop. But that’s not what happened. Deliberately vandalizing the street is a crime no matter how it’s decorated.
He got stuck with reckless driving charge on his record, not vandalizing the street?
That’s what they settled on. They could also have gone for vandalism, but it probably carries a lower penalty.
If it’s normal wear and tear then no one would ever think of charging you. Likewise if you have to stand on the brakes because the car in front of you suddenly stopped, or because someone has just run out in the road in front of you, or for any other legitimate reason. But if you’re doing it on purpose to vandalize the painting then it’s a crime, regardless of what the painting is or what it stands for.
Johnson’s burning of the flag took place in front of the Dallas City Hall. – a public space if there ever was one.
I’m not familiar with details of that case. Potential for low level misdemeanor offense? Setting things on fire is different from picketing and making speeches. Its more like shooting fireworks, or setting trash can on fire. Could be let off with warning, fine, 1 day in jail. People who do that want to get caught for the attention they draw to themselves.
The 1984 GOP Convention was held in Dallas. Johnson and a bunch of protestors marched to the Dallas City Hall chanting anti-GOP and anti-USA slogans.
Once at City Hall, Johnson, to the cheers of by-standers doused the American flag with kerosene and lit it on fire. While the flag burned, the protestors chanted: “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.”
Johnson was charged with a Texas statute that made it a crime to destroy a “venerated object” – specifically the US flag.
He was convicted in District Court. The conviction was overturned in the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court.
The SCOTUS ruled that while Texas had statutes that may have covered the actions of Johnson, they did not charge him with those statutes.
The Court ruled that the flag burning was clearly political speech. The Court stated that Johnson’s actions, repugnant on many levels, did not incite violence, was not “fighting words” or any other speech not protected by the First Amendment.
The Court also cites a quote by Justice Jackson in from another case which reads:
That is something that we need to remember today more than ever.
Thanks for detail.
I think this about use of public spaces, which can be regulated by the government.
Anybody should be able to burn any flag in their own driveway on private property.
But setting things on fire in public spaces isn’t obviously protected form of free speech?
This whole distinction between public and private property is wrong, and it’s not one the court made. Flag-burning and all other kinds of speech are equally protected on public property and on private, so long as you have the owner’s permission. You do not have freedom of speech on someone else’s private property; he can tell you to leave if you’re going to talk like that, and you must comply.
But whether on private or public property, the government may enforce value-neutral laws such as the fire code or the traffic code, in a completely value-neutral manner. In a traditional public forum, such as a public street, the government’s laws must not only be value-neutral, they must also be content-neutral. So even a law against burning all flags on the street would be unconstitutional, if burning similar items is not also covered. There must be a rational distinction between what you can burn on the street and what you can’t. Whereas in a place that’s not a traditional public forum the laws must only be value-neutral, i.e. all flags must be treated the same, but they needn’t be content-neutral, so the government could ban burning (or flying) flags and not other items, if it wants to..
no free speech in public? Public spaces are traditional public forums where we may speak freely
Setting things on fire can be construed as something that violates public safety codes. Setting off fireworks isn’t protected free speech. Setting trash cans on fire isn’t protected free speech.
The city could claim he violated some public safety code. They could hassle the person, shoe him away from the space, $1000 fine, night in jail for example. That could apply for anybody setting anything on fire in public space. There is no protected right to burn things in public.
Yes, they are, and all laws enforced there must be content-neutral as well as value-neutral. So you can’t block traffic. You can’t violate the fire code.
The same rules do apply.
someone explain “cashless bail” – I thought that the very point of bail was so that it HURTS if you run out on it.
If it is not cash, how can it hurt you to run away?
Bail has turned into a punishment for being *accused* of a crime. Take Rittenhouse as a good example. He was given unreasonable bail. Through fund raising, he managed to make it. So the prosecution demanded the bail be increased. Which through fundraising, he managed to match again. So the prosecution went back…until eventually even the judge saw this was just a ploy. Or any number of peaceful J6 protesters at the beginning of the arrest-and-jail cycle. Charged with a felony (later kicked out as improper overcharging), the prosecution demanded these hardened criminals with no previous arrest record and no violent offense charged be held *without* bail until the trial a year or two, maybe three down the road. Might even toss myself into the mix twenty years ago, when I was living barely paycheck to paycheck with a wife and four young kids to support. The prosecution did not need bail to ensure my appearance at court, and even a token couple of hundred bucks could have broken us worse than legal fees. At least those you can put on a payment plan.
It’s “own recognizance” but with the word “bail” tacked on to keep the rubes anesthetized.
They can put you on an ankle monitor. They can require you to report to a police station twice a day. The point is that it shouldn’t be a crime to be poor. The flaw of cash bail is that some people remain in jail simply because they can’t afford it, and that is morally wrong. The question is how to fix it while still keeping the incentive not to run.
Maybe when you’re born they give you two (being overly generous here) red tickets that say KEEP THIS COUPON. They’re each good for one cashless bail. After that, you don’t get any more.
Now, let’s do something about those junk-jewelry flag pins. If you have to wear your patriotism on your lapel to prove it, I find it suspicious.
Look at the folks who wear them. Politicians. Fibbies. Shumer. Swalwell, Whitehouse. Biden.
“He won’t wear the ribbon?”
“He has to wear the ribbon. Here, put this on.”
“No, I don’t want to wear the ribbon.”
Excellent episode.
“Who dossent want to wear thee ribbon?”
I have absolutely no idea to what you refer.
seinfeld episode
Seinfeld episode “The Sponge”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuafhcg843c
I F’ing love that show.
Can’t get enough of it, even today
That’s why I don’t know. I’ve never seen a single episode of that show.
Everyone has to wear flair to express their individuality. “You know what, Stan, if you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy over there, Brian, why don’t you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair?”
I’m so old I remember when people wore blue jeans to flaunt their non-conformity.
Grizz, look at the people who refuse to wear it. I remember our side getting worked up at TV reporters who refused to wear flag pins on air, in order to present themselves as neutral between the USA and our enemies.
What flapdoodle. I recall my college rookie who was a Captain in the Army. He got a LOT of flack for not having a flag decal on his car. As if service wasn’t enough. A 25-cent flag sticker was supposed to make him more of a patriot.
Rookie = roomie.
Just a thought. Trump could want it challenged by the left. The DOJ could argue all the cases where similar actions are “hate speech” and people have been convicted. Then the SC throws them all out as unconstitutional in a case the left brought in the first place knowing it’s not going to cost him politically.
There are no such cases. No one in the USA, in the last 50 years, has ever been convicted of such a thing as “hate speech”. It is not a concept known to US law.
As I recall, Congress was always on the point of passing such a law and vote counters always arranged for a very narrow defeat, so everybody needing to could vote for it but it would never pass. Back when there was bipartisan cooperation.
I remember some German poet’s line “Ich fahre die Fahne!” (I carry the flag) a kid writing home in the old days.
I don’t see it in Google so maybe I’m misremembering college German from long ago.
The order is “GAS!”
Upon hearing the order “Gas!”, soldiers are trained to stop what they’re doing and don their protective masks. This one-word order will stop a marching formation in its tracks. (Even if they’re not carrying their protective masks.)
I was not expecting that. I thought the one-word order was going to be “DISMISSED!”.
The flag order will not stand. It’s defiantly unconstitutional. The flaw in its “reasoning” is that it plays fast and loose with the term “incite”. But SCOTUS already ruled decades ago that “incitement” has to be defined extremely narrowly, in order to save the laws against it from being unconstitutional.
SCOTUS recognized incitement as one of the exceptions to the freedom of speech, but only on condition that it’s defined with three essential elements: Incitement is speech that is both (1) subjectively intended and (2) objectively likely to cause its audience to commit a crime (3) imminently. Incitement is specifically not applicable when it’s the speaker’s opponents who are likely to commit a crime, even if that is the speaker’s intention. That is the “heckler’s veto”, which is anathema to the constitution.
As for the “fighting words” doctrine. SCOTUS has never explicitly rejected it, but it’s likely that it’s no longer valid. I don’t think there’s been a decision citing it since the 1950s, and I doubt there is anyone left on the court who believes in it.
The original decision that first originated this doctrine said that calling a policeman “a damned racketeer” and “a damned fascist” is so outrageous, and so likely to cause the cop to instinctively punch you in the face, that the state can ban you from saying it. There is no way on earth that that decision would come out that way nowadays, or at any time in the last 60 years. Nowadays that state law would have been struck down 9-0.
“Cashless bail” is “release without paying bail” and should be eliminated except in cases like “people wandering around inside the Capital building”.
On the other hand, requiring cash bail should require providing a speedy trial, unlike imprisoning “people wandering around inside the Capital building”.
But there are always excuses for not providing a speedy trial.
Usually the reason for not providing a speedy trial is that the defense needs more time and waives its right.
In the case of J6, waives rights for four years? In that case, the prosecutors and the judges were corrupt. I have seen a situation (small town) in which the courts simply had a huge backlog. That is not the defendant’s fault.
Eugene Volokh, whom everyone here surely recognizes as one of the top experts on the first amendment, weighs in: Prosecutions Under New “Prosecuting Burning of the American Flag” Executive Order Would Violate First Amendment
The Babylon Bee weighs in
Trump Decrees Anyone Who Does Not Bow Down To The American Flag When The Music Plays Shall Be Tossed Into The Fiery Furnace
This issue is bait for ‘progressives’ to see what they will do. Another 70/30 issue. Warnings are already appearing on prog sites not to take the bait.
The progressives will come out in favor of flag burning, just because Trump is against it.
I’m against people burning the USA flag. I still remember (with much pride as a Cubs fan) when Rick Monday stopped two idiots from burning Old Glory back in 1976.
They should never have gutted the flag code.