1 I know what you mean about the boy.  Still, it may work out.  Good that someone charged his Mom for this abusive upbringing.           USA, all the way!

2 I don't want a law against someone messing with the American flag.
Let them step on it, burn it what ever...
I want to know who these SOB;s are,
get them out in the open.
Let us see who they are...
Some freedoms are double edge swords,
G

3 Engaging in constitutionally protected speech or allowing your child to do so is now contributing to the delinquency of a minor?  I don't particularly like that notion.

Just imagine -- CPS showing up at the door to haul away children whose parents have taken them to protest abortion.

And what about the First Amendment right to freedom of religion -- take your kid to the wrong church, go to jail.

No, this is definitely an unacceptable development -- as much as I despise the Fred Phelps Klan and all they stand for.

4 The interview you provide of this woman via a radio station is very insightful.  She is a "classic true believer" in the Eric Hoffer sense.  For her, the Bible is in fact words from God.  It provides her with instructions and guidance.  Do this and that shall happen, don't do this and this shall happen.  Real simple.

And when one thinks about this way of living your life, doesn't it seem just like those Jihadists, those Islamofacists who are coming after us?

I think so.  So, she is a sister to those who we consider our enemies.  Perhaps she should go meet those people...on our front lines.  I like this idea.

Yep, let's send her over there, sooner rather than later.  Let's put her "truth to their power" right now!

Amen.  Amen.  Clap my brothers.  God has told me to send her there now!

5 You wonder what kind of crap and lies she is teaching her kid

6 That fucking bitch who protests at funerals because she's glad they died. These soldiers didn't pick the wars they fight. They just served their country and deserve to have their funerals in piece. That bitch deserves to die.

7 <i>Engaging in constitutionally protected speech or allowing your child to do so is now contributing to the delinquency of a minor?</i>
 
Abuse of the flag isn't constitutionally protected; also, the female was charged under state codes in a law that was put into force in 1977.  The female now claims that the law is "outdated," but that isn't a defense.
  
I'd also like to point out that the county attorney believes that as "fighting words" they are not protected-- makes sense, since the malice of "fighting words" and the likelihood of causing harm meshes with the classic "yelling fire in a theater."

8 The county attorney is a moron, and clearly incompetent.

SCOTUS upheld flag burning and desecration as constitutionally protected speech years ago.  That is why there has been a move to get a flag-protection amendment into the Constitution.

Therefore the 1977 statute is not only outdated but is also unenforceable due to unconstitutionality.  Similarly, since flag desecration is constitutionally protected speech, one cannot punish it under the rubric of "fighting words".

9 I can. By kicking the ass of anyone who does it front of me. Have attorney, have bail money, have size 13 shoe and ready and willing to use all of them.

10 The county attorney is a moron, and clearly incompetent.
Wrong, Rhymes with Right.

The SCOTUS decision is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson
It was a 5-4 decision, and from what I recall when I actually read it, the case was actually a very close call.

Two things to remember:
1. Stevens was in the dissent in Johnson. With the current court makeup, I don't know how this decision would shake out on "flag burning = free speech" grounds. But Johnson could very easily be reversed.
2. Even after Johnson, "breach of the peace" remains a viable prosecution to get flag burning punks. That crime does not target the expressive component of the flag burning, and thus this sort of prosecution is still constitutional (breach of the peace was explicitly not at issue in the Johnson case).

As a point of practice, Rhymes with Right, never claim a 5-4 SCOTUS decision is "clearly" one way or the other.

11 Actually, wooga, the precedent is very clear, if you go back and read the decision and the prior decisions that were used to support it. For that matter, the following year the principle was upheld in US v. Eichman, striking down the federal flag burning statute. I see no court reaching out to overturn this decision, not without overturning a long line of precedents that would destroy roughly a half-century of First Amendment jurisprudence.

And yes, "breach of peace" does remain -- but only if they are desecrating someone else's flag or doing it on someone else's property. Doing it to one's own flag at a time and place where one has a permit for a demonstration could never meet the definition of "breach of peace" except under the most bizarre reading of the relevant precedents. As i point out on my website, Terminello v. Chicago generally mitigates against charging someone with a crime because their political speech provokes opponents, which pretty well undermines any application of the Chaplinsky "fighting words" doctrine in this instance.

Besides, if you really follow the logical path of the reasoning you and the supporters of these charges put forth, all it takes is for the Left to threaten violence to silence conservative speech. Do you really want to establish the precedent that your First Amendment rights are contingent upon there being nobody seriously offended by their exercise?

For more analysis, visit my post on the subject.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/229306.php

12 I am firmly aganist a "heckler's veto," for the very reason you point out.  Plus, I agree that the law right now is quite clear that flag burning is expressive conduct protected by the first amendment. Personally, I think this is a good thing, and in line with the text and original intent of the constitution. My favorite justice is Thomas, after all (Scalia 2nd).

However, just because something is protected by the first amendment does not mean it is immune from restriction.  Time, place, and manner restrictions are entirely appropriate, because they are "content neutral."  As Scalia explained in R.A.V. v. St Paul, even though a law against "racist cross burnings" would be struck down, an "unlawful burning" statute CAN be used to prosecute someone who burns a cross (or flag). The key to passing the speech "balancing tests" is to avoid any superficial semblance of viewpoint discrimination. This was where I was going with my #2 point in post #10.

Second, my #1 point in post #10 was that there are current members of the court (such as Stevens) who would like to reverse Texas, breathe new life into the 'fighting words' doctrine, and classify flag burning as quintessential fighting words. The liberal wing of the court is fond of 'hate crime' laws, and this would be right up their alley.  Similarly, a "republican, not conservative" justice (like dead Rehnquist) would join the liberal wing.  Right now, I do not know where Alito or Roberts will fall: with Scalia or with Rehnquist? This is an unknown, and is far from clear.  

The broad category of "anti-hate speech," "blasphemy," and "desecration" laws are embraced by judges of all political persuasions.  I'm positive that Harriet Miers would have loved to join Stevens in upholding such laws. That's one reason the true conservatives objected so strongly to her.