Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 253: Scot Free

(+) Yeah! (+)

SmartMuffin posted...

Burning the US flag is protected speech.

On the other hand...

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/475333-iowa-man-sentenced-to-16-years-for-hate-crime-after-setting-pride-flag

Appalling

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I dont know why Klobuchar hasnt made more inroads with the moderate part of the democratic electorate. She seems leagues better than Biden and Buttigieg and also I like how much shes been dunking on Buttigieg this debate.

Like between her and Biden and Buttigieg I feel like she easily looks like the best candidate and would probably be the only Id trust to hold their own in the debates.

Its because shes boring, which is, unfortunately, a big electoral liability.

I like her quite a bit besides the staff abuse stuff!

---

SmartMuffin posted...

Burning the US flag is protected speech.

On the other hand...

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/475333-iowa-man-sentenced-to-16-years-for-hate-crime-after-setting-pride-flag

Wow, that's really unfair and hypocritical that this guy went out, bought an LGBTQ+ flag for the purposes of burning it in protest, in accordance with his beliefs on LGBTQ+ issues.

Oh wait, he tore down the LGBTQ+ flag from a church and burned their property. Yeah, that's a hate crime and he's a dumb piece of shit.

---

It is not legal to steal an American flag for the purposes of burning it.

Also if you stole an american flag and started spouting racist crap or something while burning it you could be charged with a hate crime.

---

You think 16 years in prison is an appropriate punishment for stealing an item that costs <$20?

---

SmartMuffin posted...

You think 16 years in prison is an appropriate punishment for stealing an item that costs <$20?

We used to have the death penalty for stealing things worth more than 40 shillings.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

You think 16 years in prison is an appropriate punishment for stealing an item that costs <$20?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime_laws_in_the_United_States

Church Arson Prevention Act (1996)
The S. 1980 (104th): Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 was introduced to Congress on June 19, 1996, but died because the Senate Committee found some places for improvement of the bill. It was sponsored by Republican Duncan Faircloth.[4] On May 23, 1996, the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3525 (104th): Church Arson Prevention Act. The Act was passed by both houses in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton on July 3, 1996. This bill became law number Pub.L. 104-155. It was sponsored by Republican Henry Hyde.[5] The bill was summarized by the Congressional Research Service as follows: "[the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996] makes Federal criminal code prohibitions against, and penalties for, damaging religious property or obstructing any person's free exercise of religious beliefs applicable where the offense is in, or affects, interstate commerce."[5] One of the changes in the bill was the sentence increase for "defacing or destroying any religious real property because of race, color, or ethnic characteristics" from 10 to 20 years. It also changed the statute of limitations from five years to seven years after the date the crime was committed. It reauthorizes the Hate Crimes Statistics Act.[6]


---

But yes, the sentence is extreme, cruel, and unusual and should be overturned. Hopefully the appellate court will do that.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Appalling

He literally went to a church, stole their LGBT flag, took it to a gay club and burnt it outside while yelling about gay people, and it wasn't the first time he had criminally harassed gay people.

Is it the charge that is appalling to you or the act?

---

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1207786289371734017?s=21

Very cool that the president of the United States drinks up propaganda straight from our biggest adversaries

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1207786289371734017?s=21

Very cool that the president of the United States drinks up propaganda straight from our biggest adversaries

I think you mean allies.


---

Is it the charge that is appalling to you or the act?

The charge.

He should be required to compensate the church for the value of the stolen flag. And that's literally all. Everything else about his actions is protected by the first amendment.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He literally went to a church, stole their LGBT flag, took it to a gay club and burnt it outside while yelling about gay people, and it wasn't the first time he had criminally harassed gay people.

Is it the charge that is appalling to you or the act?

The act apparently.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

The charge.

He should be required to compensate the church for the value of the stolen flag. And that's literally all. Everything else about his actions is protected by the first amendment.

I dont necessarily agree with the length of the sentence, but is your stance on theft really if youre forced to replace it no harm, no foul?

---

Last month, Adolfo Martinez, 30, was convicted of a hate crime, third-degree harassment and reckless use of fire

Fair next.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He literally went to a church, stole their LGBT flag, took it to a gay club and burnt it outside while yelling about gay people, and it wasn't the first time he had criminally harassed gay people.

Is it the charge that is appalling to you or the act?

Both. Imagine if someone stole a MAGA hat off of the head of a vulnerable conservative student on a college campus and burned it in front of them. I think we do need a severe sentence to punish the perpetrator for that crime, because their peers won't. 16 years is rather extreme though. Give them 10 with parole after 5.

---

I dont necessarily agree with the length of the sentence, but is your stance on theft really if youre forced to replace it no harm, no foul?

In general, justice should be about compensation more than anything else.

If you wanted to make it something like "You pay double, once to compensate for the item and once again as punishment" I'd be fine with that.

But in no sane universe should the fine for stealing a $20 item be anything more than like $100.

Remember, in progressive San Francisco, if you steal anything less than $1,000 they won't even bother to charge you.

---

SmartMuffin posted...

In general, justice should be about compensation more than anything else.

If you wanted to make it something like "You pay double, once to compensate for the item and once again as punishment" I'd be fine with that.

But in no sane universe should the fine for stealing a $20 item be anything more than like $100.

Remember, in progressive San Francisco, if you steal anything <I>less than $1,000</i> they <i>won't even bother to charge you</i>.

$950 Smuffin. $950 is a felony.

---

https://twitter.com/nycjayjay/status/1207796543534903297?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Its because shes boring, which is, unfortunately, a big electoral liability.

I like her quite a bit besides the staff abuse stuff!

I know she isnt perfect but if youre a moderate your choices are an old man that wants to cut taxes on marmalade and never seems quite sure where hes at, a guy who is the mayor of the fourth most interesting city in Indiana, and a successful fairly young senator from a swing state.

seems pretty easy to me imho

---

And the way I see it is, if society or one's peer group will punish a criminal for their offense, the government really doesn't need to do much more. If a faction of society will celebrate the crime on the other hand - then the government needs to step in to defend the rest of society. And that is the case with liberals now who feel empowered to attack conservatives - if they break the law - lock them up!

---

In relative terms, the loaf of bread stolen by Jean Valjean was probably more costly than this LGBT flag.

"Fair, next!" - B8, apparently.

---

SmartMuffin literally trying to argue there is no such thing as a hate crime and people should be able to go take things from minority groups and just burn them for a slap on the wrist.

---

Muffin, what do you think about my MAGA hat example?

---

SmartMuffin literally trying to argue there is no such thing as a hate crime

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/031/015/EA42mJJXYAEzxWF_(2).jpg

---

that was a literal literally, you didn't need to reaffirm with a dumb image.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

I know she isnt perfect but if youre a moderate your choices are an old man that wants to cut taxes on marmalade and never seems quite sure where hes at, a guy who is the mayor of the fourth most interesting city in Indiana, and a successful fairly young senator from a swing state.

seems pretty easy to me imho

Pure curiosity as an Indiana native, what are the three most interesting cities in Indiana?

---

In case you were concerned that Sarah Huckabee Sanders might have stopped being a terrible person since leaving the Trump admin:

https://twitter.com/kevinmkruse/status/1207864796646969345?s=21

---

It's okay. She did another tweet clarifying that she was not making fun of anybody with a speech impediment.

Whew. Glad that's cleared up!

---

SmartMuffin posted...

You think 16 years in prison is an appropriate punishment for stealing an item that costs <$20?

Actually it would've been a maximum of 5 years for that charge, but he's a habitual offender. He's got nobody to blame for the extended sentence but his own dumbassery.

---

Dan Crenshaw mildly criticizes Trump for his attacks on John and Debbie Dingell
The replies are basically all "no, she deserved it"

https://twitter.com/RepDanCrenshaw/status/1207702064022859777

---

My blood is fucking boiling:

https://twitter.com/joesonka/status/1207820057574879232

---

In relative terms, the loaf of bread stolen by Jean Valjean was probably more costly than this LGBT flag.

If I recall correctly, most of Valjean's sentence is for repeated escape attempts, not for the initial theft. So, he was a repeat offender being punished harshly. Just like this guy!
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

In relative terms, the loaf of bread stolen by Jean Valjean was probably more costly than this LGBT flag.

If I recall correctly, most of Valjean's sentence is for repeated escape attempts, not for the initial theft. So, he was a repeat offender being punished harshly. Just like this guy!

Malcolm Masher and his TYPICAL Javert apologist agenda strikes again.

---

Burning an LGBT flag should not be a crime

Burning an LGBT flag OUTSIDE OF A GAY BAR is a direct threat akin to the KKK burning a cross at a black mans house and should be a crime
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Burning an LGBT flag should not be a crime

Burning an LGBT flag OUTSIDE OF A GAY BAR is a direct threat akin to the KKK burning a cross at a black mans house and should be a crime

Burning an American flag in America should be the same as burning a LGBT flag in a gay bar.

---

Uhhh no

Do you think that constitutes a threat of some kind?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Burning an LGBT flag should not be a crime

Burning an LGBT flag OUTSIDE OF A GAY BAR is a direct threat akin to the KKK burning a cross at a black mans house and should be a crime

burning a flag is not the same as burning a cross, a gay bar is not the same as a person's private residence, and an individual doing an act is not the same as a hooded/masked collective. this is apples to oranges.

it shouldn't be a crime to burn a flag outside of a place out of protest, that's political speech. whether that flag be a government flag at a government building or an lgbt flag outside a gay bar, that should be fine and protected.

but stuff not included in the case do explain the sentence. yes his stealing is a crime but that wasn't what made the sentence what it was - him being a habitual offender and denying a lawyer were. he literally chose to go at it with no lawyer, which is dumb. repeat offender rules are also bad due to extreme results like this happening. punishing him for a few years is fair, if you believe in a more rehabilitation aspect this is also true. but 16 years isn't helping anybody and ruining the rest of a 30 year old's life for being an asshole and a dumbass - there's no plausible way to recover from that and the punishment is just excessive.

---

Wanglicious posted...

burning a flag is not the same as burning a cross, a gay bar is not the same as a person's private residence, and an individual doing an act is not the same as a hooded/masked collective. this is apples to oranges.

it shouldn't be a crime to burn a flag outside of a place out of protest, that's political speech. whether that flag be a government flag at a government building or an lgbt flag outside a gay bar, that should be fine and protected.

If you were to burn a cross outside of a black church - or, say, take a gun and shoot one up, like in Charleston - that's a hate crime. The issue is not public vs private residence. The issue you're trying to get at is if sexual orientation and gender are protected classes. They aren't everywhere, but they should be, and that makes this a hate crime.

---

Wanglicious posted...

burning a flag is not the same as burning a cross

Why not?

Wanglicious posted...

a gay bar is not the same as a person's private residence

I would take the threat the exact same way if someone burned a cross outside of a heavily black nightclub.

Wanglicious posted...

and an individual doing an act is not the same as a hooded/masked collective

The potential threat level is not significantly different enough to be meaningful. One person can kill or harm just as much as a collective, just not as easily
---

And yes, 16 years of prison is a stupid punishment
---

I find it incredibly curious whenever a black man is shot inside his home, they always dig into his history. "He had a history of marijuana" etc...

But those same people.. they don't want to consider this habitual offenders past. Can't imagine why.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Why not?

flag is a political symbol, cross is a religious one. burning a flag may mean anything from disagreement, hate, or making a political statement but burning a cross is going to be significantly stronger due to it literally being about life, death, and the afterlife.

Jakyl25 posted...

I would take the threat the exact same way if someone burned a cross outside of a heavily black nightclub.

flag ain't cross.
but this doesn't make sense either since a nightclub and a private home are entirely different - a place of social gathering is drastically different than literally your own home. one is a place you go to to socialize, hang out, or drink. the other is where you and your family sleep. they are in no way comparable.

Jakyl25 posted...

The potential threat level is not significantly different enough to be meaningful. One person can kill or harm just as much as a collective,

...the threat level of one dude against... a group of masked people are similar? really? that's just dumb. sorry, but no, one person cannot kill or harm as much as a collective, that's incredibly stupid and nonsensical. a hooded person is ACTIVELY HIDING THEIR IDENTITY, a collective committing a violent act, you're saying that this is the same as a dude in the street. no. if you seriously consider these two as not significantly different i can't help you because it objectively is.

---

Wanglicious posted...

flag is a political symbol, cross is a religious one. burning a flag may mean anything from disagreement, hate, or making a political statement but burning a cross is going to be significantly stronger due to it literally being about life, death, and the afterlife.

The LGBT Flag is not a political symbol. It's a symbol of sexual orientation.

---

Wanglicious posted...

...the threat level of one dude against... a group of masked people are similar? really? that's just dumb. sorry, but no, one person cannot kill or harm as much as a collective, that's incredibly stupid and nonsensical. a hooded person is ACTIVELY HIDING THEIR IDENTITY, a collective committing a violent act, you're saying that this is the same as a dude in the street. no. if you seriously consider these two as not significantly different i can't help you because it objectively

is your argument seriously not that one person can't do significant and deadly harm but that more than one person can do MORE harm?

---

Wanglicious posted...

but this doesn't make sense either since a nightclub and a private home are entirely different - a place of social gathering is drastically different than literally your own home. one is a place you go to to socialize, hang out, or drink. the other is where you and your family sleep. they are in no way comparable.

But the threat you are making is the same

If you slip a letter in someones mail slot saying you want to kill them, thats the same threat as putting it in their office cubicle. And the only thing punishable here is the threat itself.

Wanglicious posted...

flag is a political symbol, cross is a religious one. burning a flag may mean anything from disagreement, hate, or making a political statement but burning a cross is going to be significantly stronger due to it literally being about life, death, and the afterlife.

Yes, burning a flag CAN be any of those things, but so can burning a cross. I can burn a cross at my house in a YouTube video as protest against Christianity. It means something different when I do it and direct it at a person or a group of people. Same with a flag.

I dont get this distinction at all. Context is key for both.
---

Wanglicious posted...

...the threat level of one dude against... a group of masked people are similar? really? that's just dumb. sorry, but no, one person cannot kill or harm as much as a collective, that's incredibly stupid and nonsensical. a hooded person is ACTIVELY HIDING THEIR IDENTITY, a collective committing a violent act, you're saying that this is the same as a dude in the street. no. if you seriously consider these two as not significantly different i can't help you because it objectively is.

So you believe a hooded collective threatening to kill a gay person should be punished more than an individual threatening to kill a gay person? Like what are we even talking about if you dont think a threat from a single person should be taken as seriously
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

is your argument seriously not that one person can't do significant and deadly harm but that more than one person can do MORE harm?

of course one person can.
it's just not comparable to a group of hooded/masked people doing the same thing. the threat of a group of people concealing themselves is much higher than a threat of a single person who isn't. jakyl said the threat level is not significantly different. that's just wrong. the second you cover your face, the level changes. the second you have a collective group, the threat level changes.

---

Wanglicious posted...

burning a cross is going to be significantly stronger due to it literally being about life, death, and the afterlife.

Also I dont think any laws should take the afterlife into account but maybe thats just me
---

Ashethan posted...

The LGBT Flag is not a political symbol.

it absolutely is.
that's what flags are in the end. businesses don't show the flag to say "hey we're gay," they say it to show their acceptance and support of the community. it's all politics and optics there.

Jakyl25 posted...

But the threat you are making is the same

If you slip a letter in someones mail slot saying you want to kill them, thats the same threat as putting it in their office cubicle. And the only thing punishable here is the threat itself.

the threat needs to be plausible and the situation changes based on where it's done. a mail slot means you know where a specific person lives and sleeps. an office cubicle means you know where a specific person works. a night club or bar, apart from being a social location, also does not have a target here. it is not the same threat based on the setting. context matters.

Jakyl25 posted...

Yes, burning a flag CAN be any of those things, but so can burning a cross. I can burn a cross at my house in a YouTube video as protest against Christianity. It means something different when I do it and direct it at a person or a group of people. Same with a flag.

I dont get this distinction at all. Context is key for both.

oh hey you care about context here but not in the other two. apply it there too.
also the KKK does it with religious reasons in mind. so the context is what i said.

---