That door was opened long ago when limits on speech were approved. But remember, a strict reading of the Constitution doesn’t protect freedom of “acts”, it protects freedom of “speech”. I personally consider the two linked, but they needn’t be. BTW, this isn’t really a “falg burning” amendment, it’s a “flag desecration” amendment. Burning it to disopose of it would still be allowed.
People aren’t completely unreasonable, so I think that the more things like this that pass, the more resistance there will be for other restrictions.
Well yeah, that’s the whole point, isn’t it. SCOTUS has apparently held that the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, so the law of the land as it stands is that the two are linked. By positing a constitutional amendment, therefore, our legislators are therefore singling out one instance of what we currently consider to be speech. And it seems that you agree when you say:
Precisely my point; i.e., they are banning a specific message; not just an “act”. It seems to me that you are implicitly accepting that the amendment targets not just a mode, but a specific instance of expression, including symbolic acts. Given that, I find it quite hard to understand how you can believe that this is not a worrying development. Specter goes on about this being “worthless, hurtful speech.” Personally, I would find Ann Coulter’s declarations that half the country are traitors to be more hurtful than a flag-burning, since they’re directed at people. If we’re banning the message a flag desecration sends, why not ban her? What’s the difference? We’ve tacitly admitted it’s not the actual flag we’re protecting, after all.
If they were proposing banning allowing a flag to fall into disrepair, whether by intent or not, then this would be a different matter; then it would be much harder to argue that the legislators were targeting the message. But they aren’t; they are focusing on the deliberate act of desecration. And I doubt you’d get nearly as much support for a flag negligence act.
That’s a bit of a wishy-washy dismissal, when you’re talking about monkeying with one of the rights the USA holds most dear. “Oh it’s all right; people will object when it really matters”?
Under that logic it doesn’t protect the written word either. This has been decided. Symbolic expression is free speech. Trying to pretend that flag burning isn’t speech is a legal and rhetorical dead end and no one with an IQ over 50 is going to buy it.
Yes it does need to be, by anyone with a modicum of intellectial honesty. Not only that but SCOTUS already said it is.
What is the legal definition of “desecration?” How can you desecrate an image which isn’t “sacred” to begin with? What a bullshit distinction. It really only boils down to “you can’t think bad thoughts about America while you burn a piece of cloth withn some stripes on it.”
It’s a morally indefensible proposal. People of good faith CANNOT disagree on this. There is a right side and a wrong side. It’s a thought crime no matter how you slice it. In order to support it you have to be an idiot (which is the majority), a fascist or a cynically pandering politician.
Has any of these clowns yet figured out to define what a “flag” is, by the way?
Right Fucking On. It boils down to a “patriotic-er than thou” pissing match. It’s got to do with people in high places who don’t want anyone to disagree with them. They want the idiots in our ranks to really believe that
burning a flag amounts to treason. It doesn’t. It couldn’t. And no amount of “But I love my country and I don’t believe in flag burning” is going to change that fact.
It’s simpler and more craven than that. Ever since 1988, when Atwater and Ailes got Bush’s Poppy to run a campaign that included deriding Dukakis for allegedly being “against the Pledge of Allegiance” (and arguably since McGovern wanted to end the Vietnam war that Nixon ended instead), the GOP electioneers have considered the implication that Democrats are unpatriotic to be an effective tactic. That hasn’t changed. That’s *all * this crap is about, even now - trying to get Democrats to go on record as “against the Flag” in an election year.
Uhm… why do you think the Founders also protected freedom of the press if it was so obvious that the written word would fall under freedom of speech. And I figured that out with my apparent IQ of 49! BTW, the SCOTUS decision declaring flag burning to be protected speech was decided by a 5-4 majority. Only an absolute moron would insist that 4 Supreme Court justices had an IQ less than 50.
Well, now who’s falling back on cheap rhetoric? People commonly use words of a religious origin to describe non-religious actions or objects. Once again, that IQ of 49 comes in handy. Flag Desecration
Further, a constitutional amendment need not conern itself with the legal definition of that word. That’s for the subsequent staturory law to do. In fact, it would be highly unusual for an amendment to do so. Chalk up one more the IQ < 50 crowd!
Well, we sure are lucky to have you around to tell us that! It’s not a thought crime since the thought itslef, when attached to other actions, is not a crime.
Why don’t you use that vaunted IQ of yours to actually back up those sweeping statements you’re making with cites. And keep in mind that I’m not claiming this amendment is a good thing, only that it isn’t morally wrong and that reasonable people can disagree over the legal issues.
Diogenes the Self-Righteous. Come on mods, I know forced name changes are typically reserved for objectionable names, but the truthiness of this proposal can’t be denied!
Give me a break. They wanted to be explicit that the press could operate without intereference or censorship from the government. Freedom of the press involves more than the per se written word. It protects the dissemination of information to the people. You could call it redundant with free speech I suppose but I can’t believe you would seriously argue that “speech” does not include the written word or American Sign Language or semaphore or [ahem] symbolic expressions.
Well I’m not so sure about Thomas but I would suggest that the dissenters in that case were being intellectally dishonest and that they were placing ideology above reason.
I don’t care about how the word is “commonly used.” It’s commonly used INCORRECTLY. A secular image cannot technically be “desecrated.” Common usage also does not equate to a LEGAL definition.
Here is the text of the amendment:
That’s all well and good but what power is it really giving to Congress? It says Congress can prohibit “physical desecration” but without defining “desecration,” it is unclear exactly what Congress is allowed to prohibit. To “desecrate” something means to violate the “sacred” character of an object or place. What is “sacred” about the flag? What “sacred” character is being violated by burning it? The concepts of sacredness and desecration are purely religious terms with no legal or secualr meaning. You can’t desecrate a secular object anymore than you can blaspheme one. you can’t make it illegal to violate the “sacred character” of an object until you define what’s “sacred” about it (and Congress can’t call any object “sacred” without violating the Establishment Clause).
So? The act itself is not a crime without the thought. Just because it’s only illegal think bad things about America while you burn a piece of stripey cloth doesn’t mean it’s still not a thought crime. A law that tells tells you when you are and are not allowed to think bad things about America is still a law that punishes thought.
Cites for what exactly? My opinion? I didn’t realize that required a cite. Have I made any objective, factual claims that require cites? Let me know what they are and I’ll see what I can do.
Words cannot be “commonly used incorrectly”. That’s an oxymoron. Words mean exactly what people commonly think they mean. Any linguist will tell you that.
You still don’t get it. Does the constitution defne what “cruel and unusual” means? No. Only on rare occasions (eg, “treason”) does the Constitution define the meaning of words it uses. If it did, we wouldn’t need laws. The Congress can and will define what “desecration” means in the context of this amendment, just as they will define what a “flag” is. This is civics 101, so I just don’t see what is so hard to grasp here.
The amendment doesn’t give Congress the power to define what “desecration” is. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Congress is not allowed to interpret the Constitution. The same thing applies to language like “cruel and unusual.”
Theoretically, Congress could pass a law against “defacing,” or “burning” or “dishonoring” the flag and SCOTUS could rule on an appeal that none of those things amount desecration.
(how does one “dishonor” the flag, by the way? Would that include, say, giving it the finger? How about losing at the Olympics?)
What am I being intolerant of? Am I preventing you from speaking? Tolerating the right of other people to express their opinions does not obligate me to respect the opinions themselves. You have an erroneous idea of what tolerance means.
Not to mention the fact that they can’t prove WHAT THE FUCK you were thinking when you burned it. If you don’t admit you’re pissed off at the administration, and tell them you were disposing of it properly, as designated by flag etiquette, how the fuck can they prove you weren’t? Beyond the free speech issues, it’s just fucking stupid and unenforceable.