I wasn't neccessarily talking about the specific ammendment, but a question in general.
What is exceptable burning, and what is not? Is it the burning that is unexceptable, or the message/speech behind the burning. If it is the burning, then you need to look at other burnings (funerals, scuttling a ship in time of war) If is the speech, why is it not protected under free speech? What makes this _particular_ speech so aggregious as to require a change to the constitution. Isn't there a lot of speech out there that is worse? On 10/19/06, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess you have never been bothered to read the proposed ammendment. This > is specifically covered. > > >Should we put the boy scouts or VFW in jail when they burn a flag? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:217942 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
