I’ve mentioned before that I like to watch the NYC morning news with my coffee. Between the latest Trump-hate prosecutions and the preventable deaths by crazy people or Chinese knock-off e-bike battery fires, one hears many unique and thought-provoking stories. This morning’s eye-catcher involved a conflict between one of the Left’s favorite kinds of city dweller — a deranged homeless person of color — and one of the Left’s most revered symbols: their beloved flag of Pride in one’s exotic sexual behaviors.
“Fred Innocent, 45, allegedly relieved himself on a pride flag outside Buceo 95’s dining shed at West 95th Street and Amsterdam Avenue around 10 a.m. on April 15, according to authorities,” reports the New York Post. “The alleged defecator then took another nearby pride flag and used it to wipe his backside, a stomach-churning video shows.” (You can see the video on the Post’s website here if you’re trying to lose weight or something.)
“It angered me that people in this world have such hatred for others that they could do something so awful and so vile,” [Buceo 95 owner Courtney Barroll] said.
After the incident, Barroll vowed to her staff she’d add even more flags to the restaurant.
“I said, ‘Don’t worry, because for the two flags that he has taken from us, I will put 50 more up,” she said. “And I’ll wallpaper the whole restaurant with them.”
It’s hard to say what’s more unappetizing — a bum emptying his bowels on the patio or a dining room papered in a technicolor tribute to sodomy — but that’s not the point of this piece. Behind the obvious conflict between two of the Left’s most cherished things is a more consequential collision of two legal provisions: freedom of speech and hate crime laws.
You see, Mr. Innocent has now been charged with committing a “hate crime” related to the incident. But were the stripes with which he buffed his backside red, white, and blue rather than the gaudy clown colors of “Pride,” Mr. Innocent would face no such charge.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the government cannot prohibit citizens from desecrating the American flag,” explains LawInfo.com. “Congress has repeatedly attempted to outlaw flag burning through legislation and constitutional amendments, but none of these attempts have succeeded.”
The Supreme Court has tried to define “free speech” in several of its opinions. Basically, it stated that “speech” covers areas beyond talking and writing. The court interpreted the First Amendment to apply to symbolic expressions such as burning flags, burning crosses, wearing armbands, and the like.
The court also held that the government generally can’t restrict speech based on its content. That means the government can’t stop someone from expressing an idea just because most people find it offensive. This is because the government doesn’t have a right to decide what ideas or information people are allowed to hear. …
In Texas v. Johnson, the court ruled that the First Amendment protects burning the flag because the act falls within “expressive conduct.” The case started when the defendant, Gregory Johnson, burned the flag to protest the policies of then-President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested for violating a Texas law that made flag desecration a felony.
The case made its way to the Supreme Court. In this 5-4 decision striking down the law as unconstitutional, the justices stated:
“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Thus, it is not only permitted but indeed celebrated to wipe one’s rear with an American flag:
Sports celebrities likewise can blithely disrespect the U.S. flag and remain extremely overpaid:
But God help the person who does the exact same thing with a “Pride” flag.
Hate crime laws are emphatically unconstitutional. They criminalize speech and even thought. Nonetheless, the Left has been using the absurd concept of a particular emotion being criminal to shut down free speech all across the West.
Related: Official Democrat Narrative Setter Is Vewy, Vewy Angwy About Tucker Carlson’s New Gig
Is there no hungry young lawyer out there who will defend this case and make a stand for the First Amendment? Who has the guts and the passion to take it all the way to President Trump’s New and Improved Supreme Court?
For in the humble act of relieving and cleansing himself on a pair of LGB flags, Mr. Innocent may well have provided an oppressed nation with the catalyst it needs to strike down one of the Left’s most powerful tools to censor speech it doesn’t like. How wondrous it would be if Innocent v. Buceo 95 were the case that restores Americans’ freedom to think, say, and act as they please.
A note from Athena: Here at PJ Media, we don’t let the Left keep us from bringing you the real news — instead of the “mainstream” sanitized, regime-approved narrative — and we have fun doing it. Sites like ours are anathema to the Left, and they use Orwellian excuses like “hate crimes” and “disinformation” to censor and demonetize us. Our PJ Media VIP members are crucial to our survival. Won’t you please join up as a VIP? For a limited time, you can use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your annual PJ Media VIP membership. Click here to check out the great benefits for members, and sign up today. Thank you so much for your support!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member