Comments on: Hillary Clinton Pandering on Flag Burning

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:35:55 +0000

McGehee: Could be. I've made some arguments enough times that I resort to shorthand presuming people know what I mean. It's probably not a good practice.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:30:11 +0000

My point is that burning, say, a pile of leaves isnât generally âspeechâ because there is no message sent.

If you had put it that way I would have had no objection. But this isn't the first time you've used the same formulation I objected to here, to defend flag-burning as "speech" -- and I believe I've objected previously on the exact same grounds.

By: LJD

LJD — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 12:36:46 +0000

"These other things are speech unless they break some other law..."

SO whipping it out in a shopping mall is a form of speech also, right? I mean, no one was hurt...

"You might have a strong visceral reaction to seeing it but itâs not wrong because of your reaction"

By: PAXALLES

PAXALLES — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:45:51 +0000

Senator Clinton Flag-ellated Over Pandering

Senator Clinton Flag-ellated Over Pandering

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 16 Dec 2005 02:04:49 +0000

McGehee: My point is that burning, say, a pile of leaves isn't generally "speech" because there is no message sent. Burning a flag is actually a good thing if it's done by the VFW after it's old and tattered. The reason we outlaw flag burning protests is because of the speech it conveys--disrespect to the country and what it stands for.

By: Robert Prather

Robert Prather — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:32:47 +0000

McGehee,

Um, yes. These other things are speech unless they break some other law, such as murder. You might have a strong visceral reaction to seeing it but it's not wrong because of your reaction, it's wrong because it's murder. Burning a flag infringes on no one's rights. Murder does.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 23:18:26 +0000

Indeed, the reaction that Cohen and I have to flag burning is precisely why it constitutes speech.

Um, no. Lots of things make people viscerally angry. Doesn't make 'em speech.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 22:30:11 +0000

Given the general suspicion that the Clintons have no principles, Hillary isn't doing herself any favors on this issue.

("No principles, only appetites," my dad said of Bill, quoting either Bismarck or someone describing Bismarck. Need to google that.)

By: The 12 Angry Men Blog

The 12 Angry Men Blog — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

opposes our right to free speech, and supports the use of preemptive force. Based on these points, along with the rest of her bizarre political opinions, we can tell she is dangerous. Unfortunately, as she continues her bid for the Democratic nomination, we are coming to realize she

By: Attytood

Attytood — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

a middle ground on abortion, somewhere out there -- she has a remarkable knack for making it sound phony, as if it just drifted through the two-way glass of a focus group room. And when she's wrong -- like trying to have it both ways on flag burning -- it hits such a false note that it would make William Hung sound like Pavarotti in comparison. Iraq? We don't know what she believes on Iraq. Neither does she. Ironically, when we read her odd comments on kids and advertising, the first politician

By: Attytood

Attytood — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000