28
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 13:
Line 13: + + +
Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code? (view source)
Revision as of 15:20, July 16, 2008
, 15:20, July 16, 2008→Yes, but
::That said, it would be an interesting project/assignment for the homeschoolers who contribute to CP to have a competition to design an alternate CP logo that does not use the U.S. Flag in its theme, but conveys the ideals of being a Conservative in a more direct way instead. It doesn't have to necessarily replace the current CP logo unless folks want it to, but it would be a great opportunity to see how the kids express what being Conservative means to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
::That said, it would be an interesting project/assignment for the homeschoolers who contribute to CP to have a competition to design an alternate CP logo that does not use the U.S. Flag in its theme, but conveys the ideals of being a Conservative in a more direct way instead. It doesn't have to necessarily replace the current CP logo unless folks want it to, but it would be a great opportunity to see how the kids express what being Conservative means to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Technically, yes. Section 1, Title 4 of the US code specifies advisory rules (there is not specified penalty) for the display of the American flag, but these rules are routinely violated. Many people (military personnel, police and firemen are exempt) for example, wear the American flag or a representation of it, as an article of apparel in violation of the code (keep this in mind during the next frew-fraw over "I'm more patriotic than you cuz I have a flag pin!").
:::The code also states that the flag should never have words or letters attached or placed on it, so in that respect, Conservapedia's logo violates Section 1, Title 4 of the US Code. However, as I have already noted. There is no penalty attached to this. [http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title4/chapter1_.html]
==NO==
==NO==
This code is only valid within the District of Columbia. It is a FEDERAL CODE only valid if you are a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE or live as a resident in the District of Columbia. It doesn't apply to any citizen of the fifty states who all have their own particular flag codes. Firstly, Conservapedia is based in the U.S.A. which is an open society and doesn't exclude the viewpoints of people from other countries. Secondly, there is no implication of exclusion by the Conservapedia logo that would label any U.S. Citizen un-American. There is something in the U.S.A. called freedom of speech which allows U.S. Citizens to make comments that may make them appear to be free from any single official viewpoint and still be considered an American. This whole attempt to want to change the Conservapedia logo sounds more like a reason to get rid of the American flag of the United States. Perhaps it is too jingoistic? Maybe a logo more representative of the global community would be more suitable? No, I think they got it right with the current one being used now.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:44, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
This code is only valid within the District of Columbia. It is a FEDERAL CODE only valid if you are a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE or live as a resident in the District of Columbia. It doesn't apply to any citizen of the fifty states who all have their own particular flag codes. Firstly, Conservapedia is based in the U.S.A. which is an open society and doesn't exclude the viewpoints of people from other countries. Secondly, there is no implication of exclusion by the Conservapedia logo that would label any U.S. Citizen un-American. There is something in the U.S.A. called freedom of speech which allows U.S. Citizens to make comments that may make them appear to be free from any single official viewpoint and still be considered an American. This whole attempt to want to change the Conservapedia logo sounds more like a reason to get rid of the American flag of the United States. Perhaps it is too jingoistic? Maybe a logo more representative of the global community would be more suitable? No, I think they got it right with the current one being used now.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:44, 16 July 2008 (EDT)