Is It Legal To Burn the American Flag?

Benjamin Benjamin Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington DC recently, and he addressed the United States Congress. And that’s what I want to talk about. I don’t want to talk about that necessarily, I want to talk about the protests that are going on outside of Congress in the Capitol. And specifically, I want to talk about burning the American flag. And more specifically, I want to talk about how it is the right of the American citizen to burn the American flag in protest, if that is something that they choose to do. So a lot going on there a couple things before I launch into it. Because I know like so many other things. These are extremely nuanced and somewhat confusing, and pretty heavy, weighty issues. And the more we can better understand them helps us to better make decisions on how we think and how we think about it. how we feel about it is, is I think, very different. I have been to Washington, DC a handful of times, and the last time that I went, I got the opportunity to go and view our founding documents. So they’re on this rotunda, and you go on your weight, and then they let in a handful of people at a time to go and see them. And I didn’t, I didn’t really think about how I was going to feel about it. But when I was in line, I was really, I had incredible feelings. I was nervous and excited. Just I didn’t anticipate having the feelings that I felt I am a diehard patriot. I am a proud American. But I was very emotional. And when I got the opportunity to see them, it was just an incredible experience. So that being said, when I see people burning the American flag, it gives me a visceral reaction. It makes me extremely mad. And while I believe and appreciate our ability to burn the flag, and I think that it should be legal to do it. If somebody did it in front of me, I don’t know what I would do. I really don’t. The whole all the climate protests that are going on when people are throwing paint or throwing just some material soup or whatever on paintings. I think that that is preposterous. And recently people threw some kind of paint on in that room that I was in in the rotunda on the cases that hold the documents. And I don’t know, I would have physically attempted to stop them from doing that. Let me just say that, I don’t know that I would have been able to, but I would have tried. So that’s how I think and feel about it. To bring the American flag, we’re going to talk specifically about the constitutionality around our ability to do that or not do it. And there’s a big difference between doing that. And then defacing property and vandalizing things. So talk about those things. One more thing for talk about this is I was a political science major when I was in college. Now it doesn’t mean that I know everything about political science, because they don’t. But part of that and my intention was to go to law school. That was my what I thought my path was going to be. I went so far as to take the LSAT, which is the law school admissions exam and got accepted to several law schools and made the decision that I was going to defer and ended up just getting into my career, which I think I would have been an unhappy attorney. So it was very much a blessing. And I’m certainly glad hope that if you’re an attorney, you’re very happy attorney. That’s neither here nor there. But every time I got the opportunity to take a constitutional law class, I really, really enjoyed that. And trying to suss out and figure out how justices are going to rule on a particular issue is really, really hard. It’s really hard because interpreting the Constitution and case law and making a good decision based on the facts and everything else really hard. And I like to say that I got it right a lot of the time, but I think I got it wrong more often than I got it right. And when you when you try and think about how the justices would rule on a certain issue based on the facts that were available, the fact pattern, and then you actually read their, the basis for the decision. They’re like, Oh, that makes a lot of sense. Now, I understand why it is that they ruled the way that they did, and why they decided to weigh this part of this information, place more value on that versus other. super interesting. And so that being said, I think that anybody who you may not like, the way that the Supreme Court rules on a certain issue, or you may really like it, but to dismiss it off hand, or just as their conservative, or their, their, their, their liberal, or progressive, I think is a horrible mistake. And I really encourage you that when you are getting frustrated, or you’re happy about a Supreme Court decision to go and actually read the summaries, to read what they put out as their justification and their rationale, their reasoning for why they they voted and made the decisions that they made. And I think it’ll help you to recognize as it helps me to recognize how thoughtful and wise and intelligent that our Supreme Court justices are, whether you agree with their decisions or not. And that it’s a very foolish thing to talk about expanding the court and putting more people on, just to get your way. So that is that. So in terms of burning the flag, I don’t know how you feel about it. I can’t imagine anybody feels good about it, when when you see somebody burn, take down an American flag that’s flying over a Union Station in Washington DC, set it on fire, and then raise another flag in its place that is not an American flag. If you’d like that, I feel like you’re maybe in the wrong place. Like you’re in the wrong country. That’s just my my knee jerk, opinion and response to it. That being said, George Washington and Voltaire said, I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. So I couldn’t agree with that anymore. Benjamin Franklin said, did you not agree with what you have to say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it JFK said whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech. Just for Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all. Gandhi said the best test of truth is the power of thoughts to get itself accepted in the competition of the market. Thomas Jefferson said freedom is not worth having, if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. Rosa Luxemburg said, our freedom depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. So those are powerful quotes to frame the conversation here today that I’m interested in having our First Amendment Bill of Rights.

Our first amendment says that it just provides the foundation of our right to protest. It protects our freedom of speech, our freedom to get together and assemble and our right to petition the government. So it just means that we as individuals can come together as groups to express our views without fear of repression or censorship, which is a really, really, really important thing. There are no other countries, very few, at least, that allow our citizens to do that. So again, so protesting ability to protest is protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. And it says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people to piece a blee to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So Freedom of assembly. This specifically protects our rights to gather together in groups for peaceful purposes, such as protest demonstrations and rallies. So peaceful purposes, that’s a really important thing. So doesn’t give us the right to destroy property, to burn buildings down, to throw bricks through windows, to go into stores and to take things. It doesn’t give us the right to harm other people, to beat them up to attack police officers. It gives us the right to come together in groups to peacefully protest, demonstrate and rally. So burning the American flag is very, very, very controversial has been for not really not that long. But it is considered a form of protest and is protected by the First Amendment or freedom of speech. Some key court cases, you’d be surprised perhaps that one of the key court cases was Texas v. Johnson in 1989. And this is a Supreme Court decision. So 1990 1989 gentleman named Gregory Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag during a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Texas. He was convicted under Texas law that prohibited that the Supreme Court ruled five to four that burning the American flag is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment court held that the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable. So what was the impact of that Supreme Court decision? As you know, states can make their laws but the federal government has supremacy. So when the Supreme Court says it’s okay to do this, that decision invalidated laws in 48 of 50 states that prohibited flag desecration. So prior to this decision, there was a it was 48 of 50. States said it was illegal to desecrate the flag, which means destroying it, damaging it, burning it. In 1990, United States versus Aikman, in response to the Texas Johnson decision, Congress passed the flag Protection Act of 1989, which made it a federal crime to desecrate the flag. Shawn Eichmann and others were arrested for burning flags in protest against the law. Supreme Court struck down the flag Protection Act in another five four decision reaffirming that flag burning is protected speech under the First Amendment. So how about that? So the 1989 decision goes and says, Nope, it’s okay to burn the flag. So it invalidates the state laws in 48 out of 50 states. Congress goes and says, Okay, we see what you did there Supreme Court, we’re gonna make a national law protecting the flag. guy goes up burns, the flag goes right to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court says nope, it’s okay to burn the flag. So they strike down the federal law. This is why it’s so important to have separation of powers. We have our executive branch, which is the President knighted states the judiciary, which is the Supreme Court and then the legislative branch, which is the House of Representatives in the United States Senate. Okay. Which you of course now. So the Supreme Court has consistently held the burning the flag is a form of protected speech, despite various attempts they have. They have affirmed that it is okay. So, what about going back to that idea about throwing soup on paintings or throwing paint on paintings. But no, you can’t destroy property during a protest that is not legal that is not protected under the First Amendment. While the first event protects freedom of speech and peaceful assembly doesn’t protect actions that involve the destruction of property. So it’s important understand the difference between speech and conduct. So protected speech is expressive conduct. Okay, burning the flag, as long as it does not harm other people or their property.

Speaker 1 14:31
So imagine that you can’t grab a flag out of another person’s hand and burn it, because that would be destroying their property from burn your own flag.

george grombacher 14:42
So that’s an interesting question as I’m talking, and I’m not going to be able to answer this question because I don’t know. But how does that work if you take down a flag from a federal building, and burn it that’s interesting. cuz it’s not your property, so I’ll have to circle back on that. But protected speech, again, is peaceful protest marches and demonstrations petitioning the government on protected content. Again, it’s actions that destroy property, it’s violence or other illegal activities that are not protected by the First Amendment breaking windows setting fires, vandalizing buildings, property damage. If you do those things, you will be subject to arrest and prosecution. So people that destroyed property and arrested can be charged with vandalism, arson, destruction of property can also be held civilly liable. In addition to the criminal charges, you’d be sued by in civil court by the property owner for the cost and damages. And there’s also other potential damages or penalties that can be assessed depending on where you do it. Supreme Court while it protects symbolic speech, it is also upheld the government’s authority to regulate conduct that poses a threat to public safety. So let’s think for example, about blocking traffic, if you’re impeding somebody’s ability to walk somewhere, or if you’re actually sitting in traffic. So there have been climate protesters that sit down in the middle of a highway, which is crazy to me. But that depends on where that is not approved, or protected by the First Amendment, because there are because that was posing a threat to public safety. So there’s local laws that say, the talk about protests, just like there were state laws that outlawed burning the flag before the Supreme Court struck them down. There are laws that exist. And that say you have to have a permit to do certain kinds of protests. Which certainly makes sense. And if you get permission to block a road, for some kind of an event, that’s fine. But you can’t simply just make the decision to go and sit down in the middle of a busy street. Because there’s lots of bad things from a public safety standpoint. And think about it if I need to get to the hospital and the ambulance can’t get through because somebody’s sitting in the road. That’s obviously a just threat to public safety, civil disobedience to great time. And that’s where some people intentionally break the law to make a political statement. That can be an effective form of protest, but it depends. There’s a lot of nuance here. So we are constantly trying to balance between the rights protests and the government’s interest to maintain public order and safety. So there have been some cases Cox V. Louisiana in 1965. That said that a group of civil rights demonstrators who were arrested for picketing near a courthouse that they Supreme Court ruled that while states have the authority to regulate the use of public streets in places to ensure public order, the regulation must be applied in a manner that suppresses free speech or discriminate. They must not be applied in a manner that suppresses free speech or discrimination based on the content of the protest and granted versus City of Rockford in 1972. This case upheld an anti noise ordinance that prohibited noisy demonstrations near schools while classes were in session. So that makes sense. Ward versus rock against racism in 1989 case involves regulation on the volume of amplified music at a concert in Central Park. The court Supreme Court upheld the regulation reiterating reiterating that time, place and manner restrictions are permissible if they’re content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest and leave open ample tentative channels for communication. So lots of words, time, place, and manner restrictions. These are really important. So what’s important about that is the time that it’s being held, how it’s being held, where it’s being held. You can apply restrictions, so long as you apply them universally. And don’t pick and choose based on a certain kind of protest that you don’t like. And he’ll versus Colorado in 2000, the Court upheld the Colorado law that created a buffer zone around individuals entering health care facilities. I’m assuming abortion clinics preventing protesters from approaching within eight feet without consent. So that highlighted state’s interest in protecting individuals access to medical facilities while still allowing protesters to express their views from a reasonable distance, so time place, manner. And this course was eight feet, you can’t come within eight feet of me, you need to let me get into this building. Interesting. So not necessarily, it seems like there aren’t, there has not been a case that deals directly with me sitting in the middle of the road, but probably soon enough. So first of all, it provides robust protections for free speech and peaceful protests, but it doesn’t shield individuals from legal consequences if they engage in property destruction or other illegal activities during a protest. Government has the authority to enforce laws to protect public safety and property even in the context of political demonstration. So why do you think about that? Now, just because the court makes a decision about something, at one point in time doesn’t mean that it’s going to not change its mind at some point in the future. We just saw Roe v. Wade. We saw change there. And that’s obviously an extremely contentious issue. And maybe one day, they will revisit the flag burning issue. But for now, going back to the idea that I may not like what you have to say, but I’ll fight to the death to protect your right to say it. I think that that’s really, really important. Really, really, really, really, really, really important. That’s one of the key things that separates the United States of America, from the majority of other countries and frankly, the majority of other civilizations that have existed within human beings history on planet Earth. And so when we attempt to restrict because we don’t like it, that is dangerous, and frankly, a deadly path to be going down. Famously, the the organization, the, what was the organization, civil rights organization, there was a group of Neo Nazis that wanted to do a march in Skokie, Illinois. And there’s a lot of Jewish people that live in Skokie, Illinois. And, at first, I thought, Well, no, we’re not going to let them do that, because it would be horribly offensive to the Jewish folks living in Skokie to have a bunch of Nazis marching down the middle of the street. And then they realized, no, we’re going to let them do it. Because it’s too important to, to our rights, to not let them do that. So is the ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union. So when you look at issues that are so contentious, and so hateful, and painful, and emotional, I don’t like it. It’s tough pill to swallow. But it protects everybody’s rights, and makes for a better and freer society. So robust debate, and talking about ideas, way more important than suppressing debate suppressing ideas. We’re all pursuing the truth and we’re pursuing. Well, I don’t know if that’s true or not. But I know that I’m certainly pursuing the truth. And while I don’t like, in fact, I hate when I see people burning the flag. I appreciate and respect that. That is a right that we have. And people want to exercise that right? Well, then they’re welcome to do it. So. So I advocate that when you are trying to better understand and make decisions about your views on major hot button issues, that you dig deeper, and you read the courts decisions and their briefs. Because sometimes while they are wordy and legalese, and all that stuff, you’ll get the gist of it. And when they they make their majority explanation, and then the people that dissent, so the people that are on the losing end of the decision, they also will put forth why it is that they dissent. It’ll help you better understand.

I think, and if you still don’t like that, well, then you have the right to go protest and advocate and petition the government to make changes does do so within the rule of law. And when we see people to facing monuments and spray painting and painting and destroying buildings that is that is not protected, that is illegal. And I would hope that we’re able to take action and prosecute punish people that are doing that, because I’m not interested in seeing that I don’t think that that’s additive or anything other than a really terrible thing. So, as always advocate that we do our part by doing our best therefore, do your part by doing your best

george grombacher 16:00
So if I want my iPhone, and my Tesla and my Bitcoin to work, we need to get the metal out of the ground.

Pierre Leveille 16:07
Absolutely. Without it, we cannot do it.

george grombacher 16:13
Why? Why is there a Why has production been going down.

Pierre Leveille 16:21
Because the large mines that are producing most of the copper in the world, the grades are going down slowly they’re going there, they’re arriving near the end of life. So and of life of mines in general means less production. And in the past, at least 15 years, the exploration expenditure for copper were pretty low, because the price of copper was low. And when the price is low, companies are tending to not invest more so much in exploration, which is what we see today. It’s it’s, it’s not the way to look at it. Because nobody 15 years ago was able to predict that there would be a so massive shortage, or it’s so massive demand coming. But in the past five years, or let’s say since the since 10 years, we have seen that more and more coming. And then the by the time you react start exploring and there’s more money than then ever that is putting in put it in expression at the moment for copper at least. And what we see is that the it takes time, it could take up to 2025 years between the time you find a deposit that it gets in production. So but but the year the time is counted. So it’s it’s very important to so you will see company reopening old mines, what it will push also, which is not bad, it will force to two, it will force to find a it will force to find ways of recalibrating customer, you know the metals, that will be more and more important.

george grombacher 18:07
So finding, okay, so for lack of a better term recycling metals that are just sitting around somewhere extremely important. Yeah. And then going and going back to historic minds that maybe for lack of technology, or just lack of will or reasons, but maybe now because there’s such a demand, there’s an appetite to go back to those.

Pierre Leveille 18:33
Yes, but there will be a lot of failures into that for many reasons. But the ones that will be in that will resume mining it’s just going to be a short term temporary solution. No it’s it’s not going to be you need to find deposit that will that will operate 50 years you know at least it’s 25 to 50 years at least and an old mind that you do in production in general it’s less than 10 years.

george grombacher 19:03
Got it. Oh there we go. Up here. People are ready for your difference making tip What do you have for them

Pierre Leveille 19:14
You mean an investment or

george grombacher 19:17
whatever you’re into, you’ve got so much life experience with raising a family and doing business all over the world and having your kids go to school in Africa so a tip on copper or whatever you’re into.

Pierre Leveille 19:34
But there’s two things I like to see and I was telling my children many times and I always said you know don’t focus on what will bring you specifically money don’t think of Getting Rich. Think of doing what you what you like, what you feel your your your your your, you know you have been born to do so use your most you skills, do what you like, do what you wet well, and good things will happen to you. And I can see them grow in their life. And I can tell you that this is what happens. And sometimes you have setback like I had recently. But if we do things properly, if we do things that we like, and we liked that project, we were very passionate about that project, not only me, all my team, and if we do things properly, if we do things correctly, good things will happen. And we will probably get the project back had to go forward or we will find another big project that will be the launch of a new era. So that’s my most important tip in life. Do what you like, do it with your best scale and do it well and good things will happen.

george grombacher 20:49
Pierre Leveille 21:03
Thank you. I was happy to be with you to today.

george grombacher 21:06
Damn, tell us the websites and where where people can connect and find you.

Pierre Leveille 21:13
The it’s Deep South resources.com. So pretty simple.

george grombacher 21:18
Perfect. Well, if you enjoyed this as much as I did show up here your appreciation and share today’s show with a friend who also appreciate good ideas, go to deep south resources, calm and learn all about what they’re working on and track their progress.

Pierre Leveille 21:32
Thanks. Thanks, have a nice day.

george grombacher 21:36
And until next time, keep fighting the good fight. We’re all in this together.