I still think that people concerned about protecting the sacredness of hte stars 'n stripes should crack down on some of the ugly-ass red-white-and-blue decorations that get trotted out around the 4th of July – or, even worse, at political conventions.
Not to hijack a wonderful thread with lurid pedantry, but isn’t the phrase “assless chaps” redundant? I mean, wouldn’t chaps with the ass covered simply be “pants”?
Please feel free to ignore this and return to an otherwise fine Pitting.
I was going to make this the platform of my next pit thread! People! Details! C’mon already!
Oh, but why not?
My only defense is I am hardly the originator of the term.
For a secular government, I don’t see any other non-emotional approach to dealing with symbols and their use, unless you fear that the symbol/abuse of the symbol will somehow destroy the state.
Can the state legitimately prohibit the burning of a cross?
I guess you never heard of hate crimes before, nor have you ever heard of the different degrees of murder and that of manslauter. Thought crimes were here long before Orwell’s ‘prediction’.
I think they can if it is being burned in order to intimidate. If you’re just having a general burning, then no…they can’t. That’s my guess. The KKK does it legally all the time. Just not on some guy’s lawn.
Well, according to the SCOTUS in Virginia v. Black only when there is associated and demonstrable evidence that the cross-burning is meant to intimidate. Otherwise the burning cross itself is free and protected speech.
Not in general, no (assuming we apply the same principle as flags). We might be able to demonstrate that specific instances of cross-burning constitute a threat of violence against an individual or individuals, which would presumably be punishable, but the same would be true of flag-burning assuming we could demonstrate such nefarious intent. This is the difference between protecting speech and protecting a specific message. Since we can’t possibly say in all circumstances what flag/cross-burning actually means, it should be protected unless it’s clearly threatening violence. And that, I would presume, is covered by existing law (it is against the law to threaten someone with violence in the USA, yes?), and is equally applicable to both flag-burning and cross-burning. It’s just that cross-burning is a whole lot likelier to imply a specific threat of violence, as far as I can see.
Or, y’know, what Kalhoun said. But longer!
Or, y’know, what SCOTUS said. But shorter!
Hmmm. Maybe, but would it have to be the complete Constitution, or, as you say, just segments thereof? Would a nearly illegible photocopy count? It could get dicey.
That kind of gets me thinking. Is any old copy of the Stars and Stripes a candidate for Constitutional fireproofing? If it’s got too few stripes or stars on it, like, say, 49 stars, is that not “The Flag”? If I stitch it together myself out of old socks, is it “The Flag”? Do I have to buy it from an official “The Flag” store with the Presidential Seal of Approval Grade A Finest Kind 100% American-Made Stars and Bars tag on it before it’s an “official, non-immolatable” flag?
This is an excellent question which I think deserves an answer.
It’s not an academic exercise.
But stay awake, because it’s not clear to me that you realize what I’m defending.
I’m defending the concept that it’s possible for reasonable people, of good faith, to be on the other side of this issue. Since I’m not, I suppose you could see this as academic for me. But even though the defense of the actual position is academic, the defense of the CONCEPT that merely because you support the idea of such an amendment, you’re not a fuckwad … well, THAT is not academic.
So we’d be limited to pooping on it, and cutting it up with oversized novelty scissors?
You know, I was really hoping you were wrong about this. Deep down I know that Otto wouldn’t be mistaken about this, but that stupid, optomistic twit inside of me still hoped.
I’m still one of those people who would never think of burning a flag in protest and in some cases it does anger me. However, as someone (Voltaire?) once said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Yes, this includes burning the flag.
While I think this amendment is stupid, I have to agree that it will do virtually no harm to the civil liberties we enjoy in this country. In fact, for those who will conitinue to burn the flag, it will make their symbolic speech even more powerful. And, the truth is, polls generally show that most people favor making flag burning illegal. I do think this is a blatant policial ploy by the Republicans, but I doubt it’ll make one wit of difference come November. I’m suprised Democrats like Diane Feinstein voted for it-- she’s very popular in CA and doesn’t have to worry about re-election. Maybe she has long term presidential aspiration…? Did Hillary vote for or against?
George Bush should ask himself, does he really want more images of himself burned in effigy? That’ll be the result if people have fewer things to burn in protest. (Assuming he had the power to stop the Congressional Republicans from making this an issue, which perhaps he didn’t.)
I’m sure you do.
I’m sure they are.
I’m sure almost everyone supporting this travesty believes it’s a good thing that will only do America good.
I don’t give a shit what they believe. I care about what will almost certainly happen that the morons supporting the amendment simply do not see. This amendment will almost certainly turn into a loyalty test. As we’ve settled above, it’s all about intent. If you burn the flag reverentially in a somber disposal ceremony, you’re good. If you burn the flag as a protest on the steps of a government building, you’re bad. But that’s only the beginning. What does it mean to “desecrate” a flag, anyway? If I leave my flag out during a storm and lightning hits the flagpole and burns my flag, am I guilty of desecration? Hell, if I look at a US flag with a look of contempt, am I guilty of desecration?
No, I don’t like the direction this would take our country at all.
You are, however, quite staunchly ignoring the main thrust of the OP, which is that these legislators are being fuckwads for cynically exploiting a cheap and easy relative non-issue for the purposes of making themselves seem patriotic. You may be arguing that it’s perfectly possible to have a nice debate about the constitutional meaning of speech, and how that pertains to the act of flag-burning, and I agree with you there. However the contention that that is what these noble congressmen are engaged in is, well, dubious in the extreme.
Yes, people can in good faith believe that the act of flag-burning is not constitutionally protected. Yes, they can argue that it should be outlawed. But it requires a political credulity bordering on the pathological to believe that the nature, timing and frequency of these legislative efforts indicates anything other than a cynical bit of chest-beating for the benefit of the voters. And that is what makes one a fuckwad.
GODDAMMIT. STOP that shit! If you’ve got a valid opinion, post it. We’ll welcome it. We’ll discuss it. Some may agree, some may disagree. However, I think we’re all fucking tired of arguing rhetoric with you! It’s NOT your job to play Devil’s Advocate on every fucking thread that catches your eye. All you’re doing is stirring up shit when you do that- you’re NOT being clever or “fair”. I know that I, at least, am tired of you popping into threads with witty little one-liners but rarely, if ever, espousing an opinion that you, yourself, are willing to commit to. Stop being a rhetorical speedbump!
Now, since you’re in this thread already, *do you, or do you not, agree with this decision? Would you have voted for, or against, it?
Personally, I think the right decision won… barely. It’s just a flag. By itself, it doesn’t mean a damn thing. Burning it, or flying it, is a valid form of speech, and should be protected. Political chest-beating like this merely wastes time, resources, and money.
Not that I want to stck up for Bricker’s line of postings in this thread, but I don’t see that there is any “right” decision here. It’s entirely possible that the Founders could’ve put anti-flag burning verbage in the constitution and we’d never really know the difference. This is not like the anti-SSM amendment, which I find legally justifiable but not morally so. I don’t see anything that compels us morally to pick one side or the other on the issue itself (althouth one could argue about the morality of using wedge issues like this for political gain). I think it’s morally wrong to discrimate against people due to their sexual orientation, but I don’t think it’s morally wrong to forbid people from burning a flag. If the people want it, so be it. That’s democracy.