Incident at Valdosta State Between Vet and Protestors

[autigeremt 6,599]

http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/news/local_news/flag-fracas-at-valdosta-state/article_8c1f2320-e559-11e4-93ad-dbffd6e2dfd8.html

[cooltigger21 0]

Bunch of worthless trash. Haven't got a clue. Good for the vet

[WarTim 3,456]

The Vet did the Right thing. God Bless!!!

[AURaptor 1,122]

Not her flag to save, but I'd probably have done the same.

Never have bought the idea that destruction of a flag is 'free speech'. I think we've been brainwashed by the courts on this one.

[AUDub 11,147]

I'm more bothered by the attempt to interfere with someone's right to free speech, but what do I know?

[WarTim 3,456]

Not much...

[AUTUmike 79]

Disgusting, but clearly within the protesters' First Amendment rights.

[Mims44 1,867]

I'm more bothered by the attempt to interfere with someone's right to free speech, but what do I know?

lol, why?

I've yelled "shut the hell up" at protestors, preachers, groupie kids, and many others at college..... because they are annoying as hell.

I wonder if anyone worries about the implications to the first amendment when I do that

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I thought there was a law against desecration of the American flag but I guess not.

[quietfan 233]

I understand that respect for the flag is a very emotional issue, and I respect the feelings of those who feel that disrespect for the flag borders on sacrilege.

Legally, however, stealing someone else's property (a flag in this case) is against the law, while destroying a flag as an exercise of free speech is not. Right or wrong, The Supreme Court ruled years ago (probably in the Vietnam War era, but I haven't time to look it up) that desecration of the flag as an act of protest was a legitimate expression of free speech.

The woman who took their flag was acting on her beliefs just as the protesters were. However, part of standing up for one's beliefs includes accepting the consequences of one's actions. She should have been prepared to get arrested for her actions. Had the protesters acted illegally (blocking traffic, inciting violence, damaging public property, parading without a permit, etc.), they also should have been willing to accept the legal consequences of such actions.

[AUDub 11,147]

I understand that respect for the flag is a very emotional issue, and I respect the feelings of those who feel that disrespect for the flag borders on sacrilege.

Legally, however, stealing someone else's property (a flag in this case) is against the law, while destroying a flag as an exercise of free speech is not. Right or wrong, The Supreme Court ruled years ago (probably in the Vietnam War era, but I haven't time to look it up) that desecration of the flag as an act of protest was a legitimate expression of free speech.

The woman who took their flag was acting on her beliefs just as the protesters were. However, part of standing up for one's beliefs includes accepting the consequences of one's actions. She should have been prepared to get arrested for her actions. Had the protesters acted illegally (blocking traffic, inciting violence, damaging public property, parading without a permit, etc.), they also should have been willing to accept the legal consequences of such actions.

Texas v. Johnson 1989 was the flag burning case. That's your precedent right there.

[channonc 466]

I'm more bothered by the attempt to interfere with someone's right to free speech, but what do I know?

Interesting, that was my reaction.

[AUDub 11,147]

I'm more bothered by the attempt to interfere with someone's right to free speech, but what do I know?

lol, why?

I've yelled "shut the hell up" at protestors, preachers, groupie kids, and many others at college..... because they are annoying as hell.

I wonder if anyone worries about the implications to the first amendment when I do that

Voicing your disapproval is fine.

[AUDub 11,147]

I thought there was a law against desecration of the American flag but I guess not.

Not for lack of trying. I don't think it will matter, even if they do get a law on the books. I'm pretty sure it would be overturned on constitutional grounds on its first challenge.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Freedom of expression goes both ways and the playboy model vet doesn't understand that.

http://www.gafollowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/83leic8200xq280e.jpg

[AUDub 11,147]

Freedom of expression goes both ways and the playboy model vet doesn't understand that.

http://www.gafollowe...c8200xq280e.jpg

You should take that flag from her for, uh, desecrating it.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Freedom of exp<b></b>ression goes both ways and the playboy model vet doesn't understand that.

http://www.gafollowe...c8200xq280e.jpg

You should take that flag from her for, uh, desecrating it. ;)/>

Murica'!!

[quietfan 233]

I understand that respect for the flag is a very emotional issue, and I respect the feelings of those who feel that disrespect for the flag borders on sacrilege.

Legally, however, stealing someone else's property (a flag in this case) is against the law, while destroying a flag as an exercise of free speech is not. Right or wrong, The Supreme Court ruled years ago (probably in the Vietnam War era, but I haven't time to look it up) that desecration of the flag as an act of protest was a legitimate expression of free speech.

The woman who took their flag was acting on her beliefs just as the protesters were. However, part of standing up for one's beliefs includes accepting the consequences of one's actions. She should have been prepared to get arrested for her actions. Had the protesters acted illegally (blocking traffic, inciting violence, damaging public property, parading without a permit, etc.), they also should have been willing to accept the legal consequences of such actions.

Texas v. Johnson 1989 was the flag burning case. That's your precedent right there.

Thanks! That's actually more recently than I remembered.

[AUDub 11,147]

I'm more bothered by the attempt to interfere with someone's right to free speech, but what do I know?

Interesting, that was my reaction.

[AURex 1,994]

Actually, Georgia does have a state law against desecrating the flag. However, the law of the land preempts that state law in the case of freedom of speech.

Also at issue, the protest was on university property and she had no legitimate business being there, as she is not a student, on the faculty or the staff, and not related to anyone there. She had "heard about the protests" and had no idea what they were protesting about, but she decided to take it upon herself to go there to save the flag.

Valdosta State is a public university, so the public can walk around on campus if they want to -- so long as they do not break laws or interfere with the legal activities of students, faculty and staff. She did.

[AUDub 11,147]

Nice summary, AURex.

[Mims44 1,867]

I often wonder how many of the gray areas have been covered concerning this.

picking up trash/other refuse from public areas for instance... if a flag is thrown on public ground does it constitute trash and can therefore be picked up and removed? This would have to take into account that someone was not standing on it, or using it.. merely thrown to the ground to show their disrespect for the United States.

Could I in theory litter if I say it's part of a protest?

Some people in here seem pretty well versed in weird legal quirks so maybe someone knows.

[Auctoritas 2,828]

I often wonder how many of the gray areas have been covered concerning this.

picking up trash/other refuse from public areas for instance... if a flag is thrown on public ground does it constitute trash and can therefore be picked up and removed? This would have to take into account that someone was not standing on it, or using it.. merely thrown to the ground to show their disrespect for the United States.

Could I in theory litter if I say it's part of a protest?

Some people in here seem pretty well versed in weird legal quirks so maybe someone knows.

Actually, there's probably something in criminal law about when something discarded ceases to become property. It's the same thing as if you see a bicycle on the side of the road, you are not entitled to go remove it just because it is abandoned. In this case, the flag was being used - albeit in a manner many disapprove of (which, of course, is why it makes such an effective form of protest).

As for littering as protest, it would be close. Remember, the government can limit what you say and not run afoul of the 1st amendment free speech/assembly by something called "time place manner" restrictions. IIRC, the test in this case is the "rational basis" test . Can the government claim to have a rational and significant state interest in the restriction of the free speech (in your case, littering)? Most courts would undoubtedly side with the state, since duty and rights under the police powers of the states surely include being able to maintain cleanliness.

For instance, in US v. O'Brien, SCOTUS ruled that burning a draft card in protest of the Vietnam War was NOT protected, because the state had a strong and legitimate interest in registering males under Selective Service obligations.

That said, it would be an interesting case, because expressive conduct is considered to be de facto or assumed protected under the first amendment unless otherwise limited, and an argument could be made that littering does not represent irreparable or imminent harm.

[PUB78 1,358]

I support theII support the vet in her actions. The protesters are just a bunch of young and very dumb kids.

[aujeff11 6,243]

It's funny how a few disowned the nurse's actions when she refused services to a student for not saying the pledge of allegiance, but a woman hindering the right to free speech is perfectly okay.