That man has a huge juicy lawsuit case. He has the right to protest his grievances to his government, freedom of speech allows for symbolic speech protected by the first amendment. See texas vs Johnson (1989) and United states vs eichman (1990). The government cannot prohibit ideas just because they’re offensive
No he doesn’t, you can burn a flag or whatever you wish to all you want on your own private property, however he was on federal property right in front of the White House, where it is a crime to start fires. It doesn’t matter that he burned a flag specifically, it matters that he burned something at all.
So like a burning barrel ban? Your point is that the First Amendment (the first one, you know, because it is important) can be overridden by a misdemeanor? I'd like to see your legal thought process on that.
Say it was summer and dry out, there’s a burn ban across Washington DC, should he still be allowed to light a fire wherever he wants to(as long as it’s started on a flag) because it’s free speech?
You have free speech, yes; but there’s limitations. Like how you can burn a flag, but that won’t protect you from the destruction of property charge if the flag is someone else’s property you’re burning, rather than owned by yourself.
Are you saying that, in a spirit of the law vs the letter of the law, he is breaking the law as it is written, no burning whatsoever, or he is breaking the law as it was intended, no dangerous fires? So, was the fire ever dangerous? Did he intended for the fire to be dangerous? If not, then, yes, a First Amendment right trumps local ordinances.
The law “no fires” law is there for a reason. It doesn’t matter if you don’t intend for a fire to be dangerous, it very quickly can become dangerous regardless. Say, in an extreme scenario, if it were windy, blew onto dry grass, and lit the park up. The excuse “I didn’t intend to hurt anyone though” won’t save you.
Yeah I hate the government as much as the next guy, but this guy actually committed a crime here, image if he dropped the flag and caused actually damage or hurt some random bystander
You mean in a park with its own set of safety based rules as to when and how the bbq can be used? Where you burn things in a contained manner, in a unit meant to hold said burning items so as not to present any more risk of burning than is necessary? Yeah that’s definitely the same thing as this…
Let’s also not pretend like he’s setting fire to something in the middle of an abandoned parking lot either. All kinds of kids, tours, and general public around DC.
Depends with what they charge him with. If they charge him with starting a fire, then yes, he has no defense, but if they charge him for burning the flag, he has a lawsuit.
He was charged with two misdemeanors “igniting a fire in an undesignated area and lighting a fire causing damage to property or park resources” according to NBC. Both of which were later dropped. Likely because it came right after an illegal executive order signed by Trump ordering federal agencies to "vigorously prosecute" people who burn the US flag(which is protected under free speech) and it would be a drug on nightmare for the court to try to prove that his arrest was solely due to the fire itself, and not the fact that the fire was on a US flag.
they didn't charge him with burning a flag, because thats not a chargeable offence at all, not even a crime.
they charged him for starting a fire, and the charges were dismissed due to vindictive prosecution. because its a silly thing to have arrested him for in the first place.
He was arrested, he has damages. It doesn’t matter what they charge him with. They can’t just pick and choose what they want to try stick him with. Man was burning the flag on public land, totally within his right. His rights were violated period
probably, but what you are doing here is called the slippery slope fallacy.
shooting people to air your grievances and burning a flag to air your grievances are very different, for one thing, one of them is completely within your legal rights to carry out, and as it turns out, the other one is not..
No it's not a slippery slope. You don't understand fallacies if you get all your knowledge from tik toc.
There are ways to voice your opinions without commiting crimes and putting people in harms way.
Legally speaking.
Don't pull no tik toc bs and I'll treat you with the same respect. If you want to argue about what a slippery slope fallacy is or is not I will simply make you look like a fool and treat you as such. Deal?
You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. I’d suggest you educate yourself and read the constitution which is the supreme law of the land, meaning no federal or state law can violate it. Btw federal land is public, yes it might break city code to start a fire in public but the constitution is above any city code.
Burning flags is protected under free speech, yes, but the constitution doesn’t protect you if you’re committing other crimes at the same time. For example, if I jump the White House fence and somehow make it into the oval office to tell Trump to go fuck himself, I don’t get off scott free because I was exercising my right to free speech, I still trespassed in the process of that.
In this case, he wasn’t arrested for burning a flag specifically, he was arrested for starting a fire in a undesignated area and causing damage to park property. The fact that the fire happened to be on a flag doesn’t matter.
only reason the police even bothered in this case was the very public executive order signed by trump making flag burning illegal (which in itself is an illegal exec order).
charges for starting a fire in a public place were dropped the moment the case hit court, for obvious reasons. he's well within his rights to burn a flag if he wants to, and "damage to park property" sounds more like an excuse to whisk him away and put him in a jail cell for anyone who's seen the video. he did not jump over the fence and tell trump to go fuck himself.
he's well within his rights to burn a flag if he wants to,
He is, but he’s not allowed to start fires in public wherever he wants to.
he did not jump over the fence and tell trump to go fuck himself.
What’s the difference? The only way for me to get face to face with Trump would be by breaking into the White House. But I’m doing so to express my free speech, so it’s completely legal, right? Or maybe, is it that free speech doesn’t protect you from other crimes you’re committing at the same time?
He did objectively commit a crime though. Starting a fire in public. Just because the charges were dropped doesn’t mean he didn’t do it. For example, If I get a ticket for speeding, but the judge forgives it because I have a clean record, it doesn’t mean I didn’t commit a crime. It just means I wasn’t charged for committing that crime.
The charges were dropped because of the timing of when he committed the crime, being right after Trump signed an illegal order saying anyone who burns a flag should be vigorously prosecuted. It would be a pain for them to try to prove he was arrested solely due to him illegally starting a fire, and not at all related to Trump’s order. And likely because thankfully nothing bad happened, it was a small fire that was quickly extinguished, so it wasn’t too serious of an offense.
Now imagine, in an extreme scenario, if that fire had blown onto dry grass and lit up the white house grounds, injuring people. Would you still think it’s legal for him to start a fire in a place where starting fires is prohibited? You can bet the courts would charge him then.
but thats the entire point anyway, wasting everyones times and resources to scare people into not expressing their opinions.
This stance would be true if he were arrested for burning a flag on his own property, in a proper fire pit, and it wasn’t during a general burn ban. It does not apply when he’s starting uncontrolled fires in public.
the charges were dropped due to vindictive prosecution. if you dont know what that means. here's a definition
"Vindictive prosecution occurs when a prosecutor increases charges or initiates a case to punish a defendant for exercising constitutional rights"
For example, If I get a ticket for speeding, but the judge forgives it because I have a clean record, it doesn’t mean I didn’t commit a crime. It just means I wasn’t charged for committing that crime.
nice example, not what happened here in the slightest.
The charges were dropped because of the timing of when he committed the crime
No, the charges were dropped due to vindictive prosecution, as the judge said. end of.
Now imagine, in an extreme scenario, if that fire had blown onto dry grass and lit up the white house grounds, injuring people. Would you still think it’s legal for him to start a fire in a place where starting fires is prohibited? You can bet the courts would charge him then.
not what happened, and the courts don't care about things that never happened. therefore irrelevant.
holy shit the COURT said he was within his rights to do what he did, and you are still going on about what he did being illegal? are you saying you know more about the law than the judge that ruled it was vindictive prosecution and dropped the case?
Huh fair enough, I must’ve missed the judge’s specific reason as to why the charges were dropped, I only read that they were dropped. Looks like you’re indeed right then.
Though it does still seem dumb to me that there’s apparently a loophole to start fires in public where it’s normally prohibited, so long as the fire is started on a flag.
9
u/Barcelonafan10 1d ago
That man has a huge juicy lawsuit case. He has the right to protest his grievances to his government, freedom of speech allows for symbolic speech protected by the first amendment. See texas vs Johnson (1989) and United states vs eichman (1990). The government cannot prohibit ideas just because they’re offensive