Does the Confederate Flag count as free speech?

This has been bugging me for a while now. Almost daily I see a car with a confederate flag bumper sticker on it, and once a month a house flying a confenderate flag. Is this protected by free speach, and if not, why is it not being chalenged?
Now I know there is a great deal of history and pride over it, especially in the southern states, but it is also connected with hatred against African Americans. Now, a few months ago, a man a few blocks from me was fined for flying a Nazi Swastica on his porch. I know the South didn't do anywhere near the amount of things to blacks as the Nazis did to
Jews, but don't these flags stand for about the same thing?

(please mind my grammer)


I think it's part of free speach, because in the civil war, black soldiers died under that flag along with free whites. and thats the flag that the soldiers fought under, and in some places the word swastica means 'let good-prevail'. you can make anything into haterd. the naacp tryed to get south carloina to get rid of the flag and they ended up putting it in the middle of the capital.

what i'm trying to get at is, yes ,to some people it's racist but to others it has history.

They essentially stand for the same conservative values, however, neither should be illegal.

Sure, I disagree with the message sent by both, however, they don't hurt anyone, and they are certainly expressions of speech.

If someone can get finned for flying a Nazi swastika theres the potential for someone to be finned for flying an Anarchist, Socialist, Communist, Anti-War, etc... flag. This would conflict with my views, and I wouldn't be hurting anyone by flying a leftist flag, even if it offends someone.

You have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to not be offended.

Originally Posted by 8bit

They essentially stand for the same conservative values, however, neither should be illegal.

Sure, I disagree with the message sent by both, however, they don't hurt anyone, and they are certainly expressions of speech.

If someone can get finned for flying a Nazi swastika theres the potential for someone to be finned for flying an Anarchist, Socialist, Communist, Anti-War, etc... flag. This would conflict with my views, and I wouldn't be hurting anyone by flying a leftist flag, even if it offends someone.

You have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to not be offended.

I really couldn't agree with you more right here. I don't like Nazis (who really does?) but it's free speech. In America you have the right to say what you want, provided you don't hurt other people. To me if you can fly a confederate flag then you can fly any flag you want. So long as it doesn't break the flag code and by raised higher than an American one.
If something offends you don't do it. But that does not mean that it should not be allowed to be done. I feel the same way with Religion, politics, console wars, everything! You don't have to agree with my views, but just because you don't like them doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to do them. So long as my "views" don't involve hurting people or anything like that.

I'm not much for the confederate flag, however I'd die for the cause of protecting it to be allowed. Banning that is just plain stupid.

I'm also not much for the confederate flag, but free speech should be protected unless it's libel, slander, harassment, or directly leads to physical harm to a person.

The confederate flag doesn't fall under any of those categories so, yes, it should count as protected speech.

I think the obvious controversy is that there's so much pain behind that flag. That flag was a symbolisim for slavery, putting a whole people in chains simply because they were black.

Same thing with Nazisim.

To me, a flag is a symbol and if that symbol was hatred, pain and downright cruelty, then no, it must not be flown. Call me a sensititve hippy all you want, but I will not fly a Confederate flag because it represents a horrible time in American history.

Link the Zora: What is the point of free speech, if not to allow people to say things that you do not agree with?

I think free speech is great, but it doesn't mean you get to be disrespectful.

For instance, I hate the Iranian government, I am free to say what I want of it, but that doesn't mean I get to go around screaming "TOWELHEAD" or any other offensive term to the Islamic people or to treat a Iranian citizen with disrespect.

It's like dancing around in a Nazi uniform in a former concentration camp or in front of a Jew. I'm free to don a Nazi uniform, yes, but does that make it right?

To me, we don't have 100% free speech. Know that saying "Don't shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater"? We have basic freedom of speech in that we can disagree without fear of being shot down on the spot or arrested.

Originally Posted by Link the Zora

I think free speech is great, but it doesn't mean you get to be disrespectful.

Yes it does, that's all it means.

Free speech means you can say things that others don't agree with and may be offended by. That is, indeed, the point.

For instance, I hate the Iranian government, I am free to say what I want of it, but that doesn't mean I get to go around screaming "TOWELHEAD" or any other offensive term to the Islamic people or to treat a Iranian citizen with disrespect.

You are allowed to do so. You'll probably get beat up for it, but the government has no right to intervene.

It's like dancing around in a Nazi uniform in a former concentration camp or in front of a Jew. I'm free to don a Nazi uniform, yes, but does that make it right?

Who said it made it right? All I'm saying is that it is, and should remain, legal.

To me, we don't have 100% free speech. Know that saying "Don't shout 'FIRE' in a crowded theater"? We have basic freedom of speech in that we can disagree without fear of being shot down on the spot or arrested.

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre because people will get hurt if you do so.

You can, however, shout any obscenity you want in a crowded theatre without being arrested, no matter how many people you offend. (You'll probably be asked to leave, but that's a private business's initiative, not a government one.)

Originally Posted by John

What is the point of free speech, if not to allow people to say things that you do not agree with?

Exactly.

I'm going to have to take the opposite stance here...under no circumstances should one appeal to such liberal sentiments and accommodate those who would not give you your freedom is given the chance. Don't sympathize with them, don't attempt to rationalize your generosity to extend to those pricks, don't even bother.

It's not only about keeping things within the boundaries of taste, but refusing to give leverage to people who cling to notions which undermine the totality of man's progress, things which can only aid to destroy everything. Excuse my hardline, it seems to be showing again.

Originally Posted by KillerKat55

To me if you can fly a confederate flag then you can fly any flag you want. So long as it doesn't break the flag code and by raised higher than an American one.

Why not?

I'd sure as hell raise a leftist flag before I raise an American flag, should I finned or arrested for that?

How, exactly, does breaking flag code hurt anyone?

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

I'm going to have to take the opposite stance here...under no circumstances should one appeal to such liberal sentiments and accommodate those who would not give you your freedom is given the chance. Don't sympathize with them, don't attempt to rationalize your generosity to extend to those pricks, don't even bother.

I tolerate them because I am tolerated and they may be right.

It is supreme arrogance to assume that you must be right and all others must be wrong; which is the only time when one could justify removing their right to make suggestions or critique your point of view.

I can disagree with them only because they can disagree with me, and taking away their ability to do so is the first step towards re-instating the slavery that they advocate.

I tolerate them because I am tolerated and they may be right.

You think you are tolerated? In all of Europe and Russia, the threat of being attacked is very real. Anti-fascists have been killed, trade unionists beat up, mere bystanders murdered, and an increasingly militant white nationalist force is being mobilized in various parts of these countries. Just because you have the luck of being far removed from this doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

Why do you think the BNP was pant****ting when their member list was leaked? It was not simply because it was a breach of privacy, but because it compromised them to an extent where they could no longer hide behind closed doors, and it is precisely because an overwhelming percentage of society loathes them.

I can disagree with them only because they can disagree with me, and taking away their ability to do so is the first step towards re-instating the slavery that they advocate.

'Cause it was come as you are in the cattle cars and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it, except remember.

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

I'm going to have to take the opposite stance here...under no circumstances should one appeal to such liberal sentiments and accommodate those who would not give you your freedom is given the chance. Don't sympathize with them, don't attempt to rationalize your generosity to extend to those pricks, don't even bother.

If we adopt this outlook we will be stripped of our freedoms. By wishing to remove the liberties of those who want to remove liberties you have joined them.

You think you are tolerated? In all of Europe and Russia, the threat of being attacked is very real. Anti-fascists have been killed, trade unionists beat up, and an increasingly militant white nationalist force is being mobilized in various parts of these countries. Just because you have the liberty and luck of being removed from this doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

This doesn't mean we should adopt the same course of action. You're essentially saying that we should remove our freedoms so that they can't remove our freedoms.

If we adopt this outlook we will be stripped of our freedoms. By wishing to remove the liberties of those who want to remove liberties you have joined them.

I stand for freedom, but I do not stand for their freedom. Just as there is a distinct difference between socialist and capitalist democracy, so too is there a difference between bourgeois freedom and actual freedom.

I am for one, can you guess which?

This doesn't mean we should adopt the same course of action. You're essentially saying that we should remove our freedoms so that they can't remove our freedoms.

Then what do you propose? Giving them freedom and a sense of security for their marches, allowing them the freedom to ransack unsuspecting people, giving them the liberty to uphold those disgusting flags? Be my guest, comrade!

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

I stand for freedom, but I do not stand for their freedom. Just as there is a distinct difference between socialist and capitalist democracy, so too is there a difference between bourgeois freedom and actual freedom.

I am for one, can you guess which?

The only difference between bourgeois freedom and actual freedom is that actual freedom requires the bourgeois to be free, along with everyone else, and as such, represented as the minority they are.

Then what do you propose? Giving them freedom and a sense of security for their marches, allowing them the freedom to ransack unsuspecting people, giving them the liberty to uphold those disgusting flags? Be my guest, comrade!

I want to give them the freedom to say what they want, for I have faith in the proletariat majority. We are intelligent enough to understand who wants to remove our freedoms and oppress us, and who does not.

And when I am wrong, I want someone to have the freedom to tell me that I am wrong, so that the majority, and myself, can acknowledge this, and we can live in a better world because of it.

Originally Posted by Bakunin Brigade

I stand for freedom, but I do not stand for their freedom. Just as there is a distinct difference between socialist and capitalist democracy, so too is there a difference between bourgeois freedom and actual freedom.

I am for one, can you guess which?



Then what do you propose? Giving them freedom and a sense of security for their marches, allowing them the freedom to ransack unsuspecting people, giving them the liberty to uphold those disgusting flags? Be my guest, comrade!

Let me get this strait. You say you believe in freedom but in the next paragraph to talk about getting rid of disenters with force and denying them thier freedom. So basically only the people who agree with your ideas get freedom. Thats a fascist dictatorship, not freedom.

Originally Posted by John

I'm also not much for the confederate flag, but free speech should be protected unless it's libel, slander, harassment, or directly leads to physical harm to a person.

The confederate flag doesn't fall under any of those categories so, yes, it should count as protected speech.

Would you consider the Nazi flag as falling under any of those categories, and if not, do you think it should be protected as free speech (regardless of whether or not you agree with flying said flag)?