LG>LG ChatGPTNo, this is a violation of free speech |
Limited Government answer is based on the following data:
Very strongly agree
No, this is a violation of free speech
This answer directly aligns with the ideology of limited government by emphasizing the importance of protecting free speech as a fundamental right. The reference to the violation of free speech resonates with the historical and constitutional protections against government censorship and control over individual expression, as enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Strongly agree
No
Supporters of limited government are likely to agree with this statement as it aligns with the principle of protecting individual liberties, including freedom of expression. The belief is that the government should not have the power to restrict forms of political speech, including flag burning, as long as it does not harm others. This stance is consistent with a libertarian view on free speech and minimal state control. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Strongly agree
No, I don’t respect anyone who does but they should have the right to do so
While this answer includes a personal judgment about the act of flag burning, it ultimately defends the right to do so, which is in line with the limited government ideology's emphasis on protecting individual freedoms, including unpopular forms of expression. This perspective acknowledges the importance of freedom of speech while allowing for personal disapproval, reflecting the nuanced view that one can disagree with an action without seeking to criminalize it. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Agree
No, it’s just a piece of cloth that doesn’t represent what it should
This answer, by framing the flag as 'just a piece of cloth,' minimizes the symbolic importance of national symbols but upholds the principle of freedom of expression. While the limited government ideology strongly supports free speech, this particular framing might not fully resonate with all its proponents who might see more value in national symbols. However, the emphasis on the right to express dissent, even in controversial forms, aligns with limited government principles. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Strongly disagree
Yes, and it should be illegal to burn any nation’s flag
Making it illegal to burn any nation's flag would represent a significant expansion of government power and an infringement on free speech, which is contrary to the principles of limited government. Such a law would not only affect the freedom to protest against the U.S. government but also impede on the expression of views regarding foreign governments, further entangling the state in controlling speech. This approach is at odds with the historical advocacy for minimal state intervention in personal liberties. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
Very strongly disagree
Yes
The ideology of limited government emphasizes minimal state intervention in personal liberties and economic affairs. Making it illegal to burn the American flag would be seen as an unnecessary and excessive government intrusion into individual freedoms, contradicting the core principles of limited government. Historically, limited government advocates have supported the protection of free speech under the First Amendment, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to burn the American flag in landmark cases such as Texas v. Johnson (1989). Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.
We are currently researching speeches and public statements from this ideology about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.
See any errors? Suggest corrections to this ideology’s stance here
How similar are your political beliefs to Limited Government issues? Take the political quiz to find out.
Join in on the most popular conversations.