Communist Book must stay

Are you for or against the action of burning a US flag? the action of abortion? the action of waving a confederate battle flag at a ball game? the action of a political candidate campaigning in a church?

 

Relevence?

 

Although the questions weren't directed toward me, I'll be happy to answer them.

1. I find flag burning deplorable. However, I do not support a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit that act. Burning a flag is a political statement and the Supreme Court has thus held that it is protected by the First Amendment. A Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning would therefore be a limitation upon the First Amendment, which I do not support.

2. Abortion is a separate issue since it involves human life.

3. Most stadiums are either private property or public facilities leased to private organizations. The entity which either owns or leases the property therefore has the right to determine whether or not a Confederate flag can be displayed on the property.

4. The question of whether a candidate can campaign at a church is primarily a tax issue. If a church feels strongly enough about a political campaign it can certainly forfeit its' tax exempt status in order to engage in politics.

 

1. Ditto
2. Ditto
3. Ditto
4. Ditto

 

Strange. A local university just pulled down all the flags of all countries that its students are from, because local Vietnamese complained about the Vietnamese flag.

oh well

 

1. Political expression was not protected by the 1st amendment - church was and the "freedom of speech" was. Prevention of the burning of presses was in the bill of rights - no longer an issue if you use the internet.

2. Abortion was prevented during the Revolution and should not considered an issue now.

3. A battle flag? who is at war?

4. a candidate is not protected by freedom of religion - churches and their religious expression were.

The modern purpose of preventing churches from being politically active when they are conservative is an assault upon religious expression and the morality of this country. My freedom of speech and MHO.

 

Political expression was not protected by the First Amendment???

If that's the case, can those residing in liberal states ban political expression by conservatives with whom they disagree?

 

As has been previously discussed, speech encompases expression of many types, not just verbal. Your opinion on this matter is contrary to common sense and judicial precedent.

 

ahhhhhhh

We are to allow judicial precedent to outweigh the Constitution. Now I get it, checks and balances are just for show.

 

You obviously needed to study harder in Civics class. The Constitution establishes judicial precedent by establishing the SCOTUS as the arbiter of law. Your argument falls flat. It is short sighted to think that actions are not forms of protected expression.

 

.......Yes.

 

So you want to ban a book you have not read because of how someone else described it?

I would want my child to learn about communism so they will appreciate democracy even more. Then they can learn the US political system after those </sarcasm>

 

It's certainly interesting what different people want to ban, and what they want to ban the banning of. Teach sex education, for example, including contraception, and ban not teaching it in schools, and even hand out contraceptive devices, on grounds that many are going to have sex anyway, so reduce the consequences. Sex and its consequences are a problem among minors, but so are firearms. So why not require firearms safety courses, and hand out .22 caliber bullets, so they are more likely to use them than .45's, which are more deadly? Another example: ban tobacco advertising, and push smokers out the doors everywhere, and force billion-dollar judgements on tabacco companies for health problems, but then mass-market and mass-produce french fries, chips, ice cream, snack cakes, et al, and hold the makers of these completely unaccountable for obesity, heart and blood diseases. We don't make a lot of sense.

 

How silly for schools to educate!

However, there is so much disinformation provided by "abstinence only" so-called education, that it might better be banned.

Fireams safety courses might be a really good idea.

Handing out .22 caliber bullets is a silly idea because if you own a gun that shoots .45s, the students will simply sell them to those who have .22s and buy .45s. It's not a good analogy anywho because by the time they leave high school more than half of all students will have had sex, while very few will have shot anyone.

AFAIK, the only tobacco advertising that has been banned is that geared towards kids. It might not be a bad idea to ban fast food advertising that targets kids as well. Smokers are banned from causing harm to those who have to work with them (a huge relief for those of us allergic to the smoke), but no one ever got fat from sitting next to someone chowing down freedom fries. Tobacco companies knowingly lied about the harmful effects of their product. They also were well aware that nicotine is physically addicting; they worked to create evermore effective "nicotine delivery systems".

 

Actually, the advertising of tobacco products has been banned from broadcast media for years. Hence, no more commercials for "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should", or "Show us your Lark!",

 

Thanks.

Liquor has made a backdoor comeback. Most the major brands now make "malt beverages" which are legal to advertise on tv. Unless you pay close attention, it's difficult to tell that it's the new "soft" malt beverage rather than their old hard liquor that's being hawked.

 

Right. Take first graders on a 'field trip' to the university hospital to watch a triple bypass operation or a mastectomy. Take them to a crematory to watch what happens in the most 'environmentally friendly' way they should choose to be disposed of some day. Arrange a survival camp for them, so if they are ever stranded in the vast wilderness how to survive by eating insects and killing a ground squirrel for its meat and to drink from its bladder. Children need to know the facts-- realities-- of life, and they need to learn young.

Okay, if there is ever any misinformation in any course or chapter of study, ban the course.

Then make a deal? Say, turn in their guns for free condoms, needles, and Swiss army knives?

No one ever got mouth or lip cancer from sitting next to someone chewing or dipping, either, but most public places go beyond "No Smoking" to "Tobacco Free." Besides, you first refer to advertising-- which is persuasion to buy something-- and then justify another form of persuasion to consume, in many cases a more effective way.

And how many ways do fast-food sellers create fat/cholestrol/sugar delivery systems?

 

But, it is not, and never will be, implemented 100% of the time.