Displaying the swastika is illegal in Germany. Interestingly there was a case some years ago where the court decided that displaying the swastika in the red circle with diagonal line (as in the European "not" traffic sign) was ok. Freeish speech?

If you hate people that hate, does that make you a hater? Are you guilty of a "hate crime"?

I'm "biased" against KKK members and neo-nazis. If I burn their
flag, am I guilty of something other than speech

Depends. Did you buy and burn the flag, or did you burn someone
else's property? It's your right in the former, it's somebody
else's right in the latter.

So many things here. Knocking off the easy ones first: When passing anti-flag-burning laws was a fad in the U.S. about 15 years ago, it was clear that all of the laws being passed were unconstitutional, and eventually the courts held so. There was some talk about an anti-flag-burning Constitutional amendment, but fortunately that got nowhere. Relatively frivolous things do not belong in the Constitution.

(Coincidentally, this week was the 40th anniversary of the Chicago Cubs' outfielder Rick Monday saving a flag from would-be flag burners at Dodger Stadium during a baseball game. It was an iconic moment for a nation that had just lost the Vietnam War, been humiliated by OPEC, and was being told by its political class that Western civilization had peaked and the future was downhill.)

Second, notice something very important here about Brooklyn Marie Fink. She doesn't want to be called out. She doesn't want to have to wear the label "transsexual" like a badge. She doesn't want to be compelled to join a tribe. She wants to be Brooklyn Marie Fink, and she wants political movements to leave her the hell alone.

"Ten, 12 years ago I was just a tall woman and nobody thought anything of it." It's bad when people are constantly telling you, "you're different and you don't fit in". It doesn't matter if the people telling you that claim to be on your side or not.

I had thought "hate crimes" were intended to be "riders," so to speak. In other words, you could not be charged with a hate crime alone, but if you assaulted or killed someone, and it was found to be motivated by bias against a protected class, you would be charged with a hate crime in addition to the assault or murder charge.

This is not to say I support hate crime legislation. I don't.

I'm "biased" against KKK members and neo-nazis.

I don't support these groups either, but they're less destructive and violent than the Black Lives Matter movement.

Yes, Cousin Dave is right. She just wants to be a person not a poster child for a cause. This showcases how much SJW's drive us apart. All this labeling only creates the Us's and the Them's

"Depends. Did you buy and burn the flag, or did you burn someone else's property? It's your right in the former, it's somebody else's right in the latter."

Right. The latter is willful destruction of private or government property. From this one article, it sounds like she burned a flag she didn't own.

(But it's still not a "hate crime," even if you think hate crimes should be a thing, which I don't.)

I think it's great when adults get to go back to college. I think we appreciate it more and probably get more out of the classes. But seriously, at 31 you should not be participating in campus "antics" like this.

The concept of "hate crime" originated for things like the KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn, but then got added to ordinary crimes. It is an incoherent law and unnecessary in most of the applications of it. Consider the black man who shot up a black church in (SC?) last year because he hated black people. ??? Or how about the black man who killed white people because he hates them? hate crime? In most cases we are forced to guess someone's state of mind rather than just the facts. These things (like burning down a church, murder) are already illegal.
The other problem is that the existence of "hate crime" laws opens the door to claims that anyone expressing an opinion (e.g., that trans people are mentally ill, that white people are also killed by police, that idiots need their free speech rights protected) starts to be called a hate crime because someone got their feelz hurt. But since some idiot can have hurt feelings about anything (skyscrapers are phallic symbols, therefore oppression!!), there is no end to how hate crime claims can be made, even to ordinary political campaigning for "he whose name dare not be spoken".

It is speech.

It is not speech. It is expression. There is a difference.

The Founding Fathers did not include freedom of expression in their list of inherent freedoms that the federal government was barred from infringing. They did include freedom of speech. The Supreme Court equated the two, the Founding Fathers did not.

That said, burn any flag you want. As long as you don't catch the woods on fire and burn down someone's house. Your choice of flag only shows your ignorance or bias.

The concept of "hate crime" originated for things like the KKK burning a cross on someone's lawn ~ Craig Loehle at April 28, 2016 10:46 AM

Was it legal before that to burn a cross on someone's lawn?

Why are we not happy with simply punishing someone for crimes? Why do we have to add thought crimes on top of that? What business is it of the government's who I hate, or if I hate?

When an act is made illegal, you have authoritarian government. When it is deemed extra illegal because of "hate", i.e., "bad thinks", you have a totalitarian government.

Authoritarian = must moderate actions.
Totalitarian = must moderate thoughts.

Social Justice Warrior = totalitarian.

I could see where burning a flag might be construed as hate speech. Not sure I agree with that, but I can definitely empathize. And burning property that belongs to someone else without their consent is definitely a crime...so...hate crime? Just a thought. Also, if the above is true then the quote below would make this a hate crime since the crime was driven by gender identity...maybe...

"criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity."

I'm with Colt on this one. Burn YOUR OWN flag as you please. But if someone else put one up, leave it alone or you're violating their rights.

Hate speech is not a thing.

Yes, we are being squashed under the oppressive outrage of Social Justice Warriors who decry hate speech, along with other assorted nonsense like "cultural appropriation" and "microaggressions," and, like hate speech, they are not things.

And while these concepts exist in the minds of SJWs and the special snowflakes who covet victim-privilege, the Holy Grail of identities, all of them fall under freedom of expression.

So, while Colt and jdgalt might not be clear on whether burning a flag is hate speech, it's ultimately irrelevant. Hate speech is still protected speech.

Colt,

It appears she burned the flag in opposition to a political movement or organization. I don't see that on your list. Either way I agree with Patrick, thoughts should not be crimes. Someone else's property was destroyed. Destroying it as political speech is no different than destroying it in a bout of drunken stupidity or even as a show of hatred. The property is destroyed and that is all that should matter.

Ah the selective views of hate speech by liberals.
Let's see:
Displaying a US flag is sometimes seen as hate speech, if say on Cinco De Mayo, at a school.
Burning a US flag is not.
Displaying a Confederate flag is hate speech.
Displaying a Rainbow flag is not (even if it offends a transexual artist)
Burning a rainbow flag is.

Sorry but either all is or none is.

She? I've seen a picture of this fella, and if 'she' is a woman, I'm Queen Marie of Rumania.

Not being a SJW, I refuse to buy that testicles are female genitalia.

Back to point, while I have my problems with everything labeled a hate crime, which makes me think of Orwell, this joker deliberately vandalized and destroyed University property and should be prosecuted.

"this joker deliberately vandalized and destroyed University property and should be prosecuted."

Sure. For vandalism or some other minor charge, one for which the first-time offender usually gets something like 30 days' probation. Not for a felony charge, and especially not one as trumped-up as "hate speech".

Brooklyn Fink disagrees with what the flag stood for. Wants T in LGBTQ to stand for transvestite not transgendered.

Brooklyn Marie Fink, 31, who describes herself as transsexual, talked about the flag burning after her first court appearance in Richmond on Tuesday. [...] “As a media artist, I intended in burning the flag only to illustrate my displeasure at the university’s failure to come to an agreement on the fact of the flag’s offensiveness.”

Fink said the rising awareness about transgender people has made life more difficult for her, something she finds “really emotional, really stressful” to talk about. [...] “Ten, 12 years ago I was just a tall woman and nobody thought anything of it,” she said. [...] “But because these gender nonconformers are being so loud and proud … now everybody looks and they can see oh, that tall woman with a deep voice, maybe she’s a dude.”

And so it begins. This revolution, like all revolutions, has begun eating its own.