I see what you’re saying in the first part, but I don’t see that the flag-burners want to destroy the US. A few might, but that’s way too broad a brush to use.
Yeah, I’m disgusted by the purely political aspect of this bit of election year posturing. I don’t want a flag desecration amendment, but I don’t think my disgust rises to the level outrage. The mindset that makes people want this amendment seems to puny to elicit outrage.
Not necessarily. Most domestic flag-burning is an expression of love for the country, but hate or frustration for how our officials are handling or interpreting something. You know there are some “off the beam” types who are guided more by mental illness than they are by ideology, they are in the minority.
Even if that were true, the flag-burners aren’t trying to write their “fundamentalism” into the Constitution.
I think that’s a ridiculous overstatement. Burning the flag doesn’t have to signify either one of those things and I think your latter inference is probably exceedingly rare.
I think flag-burning is essentially a form of trolling. It’s done to evoke a strong response. It doesn’t exactly have much persuasive effect and few, if any, of those who do it have any illusion that destroying the symbol is the same as destroying (or even wishing to destroy) what it symbolizes. Their goal is just to piss people off. The best response is no response. If people wouldn’t feed these things they wouldn’t do it.
Actually, looking back to an earlier discussion point in this thread, one problem with desecrating a flag (particularly by burning it), is that it really means nothing without surrounding the act in all the words necessary to describe the intent.
I would say that in every case where I have seen a flag burned (aside from retirement), the only clear message was that the burner held a certain amount of anger regarding the country. However, I have seen it used to indicate contempt for the failure of the country to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of independence; I have seen it used to indicate that the DoI was, itself, merely a rationalization for a land grab by invaders; I have seen it used to indicate sorrow for current or past injustices committed by the country (in a “we’ve failed–this symbol is meaningless” manner); I have seen it used to indicate that the government was hateful and corrupt and that we need to return “power to the people”); and I have seen it used to indicate a number of other views.
The person who uses the destruction of the flag to indicate that we have failed as a nation is hardly demonstrating the same message as the person who uses the destruction of the flag to indicate that the country had no right to exist.
Beyond anger, flag desecration states nothing. It is merely a way to get attention for a speaker to state some particular thing.
I think an anti-desecration amendment is a betrayal of the goal of the First Amendment, but I also think that desecrating the flag is a moronic practice that demonstrates the poverty of imagination among the person carrying out the act.
(And this is in response to everyone else who’s stated this to me in this thread.)
But it’s hard to say, isn’t it? As tom said, without words to clarify the intent, the act itself conveys no direct meaning due to the endless possibilities that can be read into it. I essentially agree with Diogenes on this that what it really is is trolling - doing something that the mainstream considers assholish in order to draw attention.
That’s also why it doesn’t bug me much if there is a constitutional amendment to prohibit it. We already refuse to extend 1st Amendment protections to trolling (“fighting words” or “shouting fire in a crowded theater”); why should we get all het up about whether this particular form of trolling is protected or not?
Given that the act itself is meaningless and uninterpretable without surrounding words, why should it be protected? Isn’t it the surrounding words - the actual political speech - that should be protected to death? Is there any reason to protect trolling via flag burning other than fear that it’s a slippery slope?
I agree, but I think it is an appropriate tool for those who are just naturally unimaginative and pissed off and also would be the correct response to a flag-burning amendment, should it evah pass. Which I’m relatively certain it won’t.
The slippery slope factor is a good enough (but not the only) reason for me.
Dang, man. You sure seem to have been in the vicinity of an awful lot of flag burnings.
Maybe it’s something about you, that compels people to want to burn flags when you’re in the area, but they don’t want to appear insane, so they make up something plausible that they can say they’re protesting.
Or maybe you’re a FIRESTARTER, and you don’t know it.
Any other logical fallacies you’d like to use to justify your position, or just that one?
Hey…follow along with your finger if you need to. What part of “but not the only reason” is beyond your grasp?
And exactly what do you mean by “fallacy?” Are you saying this amendment wouldn’t open the doors to other possible infringements on the right to free speech? You can’t be serious.
Here’s a wiki article on the slippery slope logical fallacy. Essentially, even when a slippery slope argument posits true statements that lead to valid conclusions, it cannot stand alone and unsupported.
Absent this independent justification, the argument still constitutes a logical fallacy, validity be damned.
So, John Mace isn’t (explicitly) saying that the amendment would not open the doors to other possible infringments on the right to free speech, he is pointing out that your post did not provide that independent justification. If you wish to argue that the independent justification has been provided, you’re welcome to do so. John Mace can be a bit hard-to-please, though, so I’d suggest you have your cites ready.
It’s not beyond my grasp at all. I was just wondering if any of the other reasons were also logical fallacies, since the only reason you mentioned is one.
And I grant that the Slippery Slope argument isn’t always a fallacy, but it’s up to the guy proposing it’s usage to demostrate that a slope does in fact exist (not that it might exist) and that it is, in fact, slippery. I already said earlier in this thread that I’d buy that argument if there was a list of other restrictions being lined up for constitutional amendments with any likelihood of passage. But there aren’t.
Now, can you grasp that?
I was unaware that they had to exist rather than could exist, so I stand corrected on my use of the term. Thanks for the help on that. There are no other immediate issues I know of, but I believe that if this amendment passed, we’d be up to our chins in like issues. I believe that the “Love it or Leave It” crowd is often against the concept of free speech and they would use this opportunity to stifle most forms of expression that seem unappealing to them.
What can I say? I was there in the 60s and early 70s.
I saw a number of those burnings on local news reports, not live. I’ve only been present at a couple actual burnings (none of which I approved, but crowd size interfered with me expressing my opinion at the time), and at least one of those was a matter of some stupid young kids showing off that they could offend “the Man” and they had no reason they could have actually expressed on the topic.
(That would be another reason to oppose such an inane amendment: it is a clear provocation to some kid to flout the law (committing an act that is pretty rare at this time) so that if the kid gets arrested and hit with a felony conviction, he gets to suffer a life of punishment for an act that, while foolish, hurts no one.)
I only disagree with you on that in degree. There are, indeed, lots of “love it leave it” types who might try to stifle other forms of speech, but I don’t think they’d be successful. The flag is truly a unique symbol, as trite as that might sound. There is no other symbol that represents the country the way the flag does. I can’t imagine, for example, an anti- presidetial effigy burning amendment passing. But that’s just our different perceptions, so I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Yes, although I get the feeling I’m posting silently.
The very concept is that the symbol is more important than the thing. Protecting the flag from desecration is desecrating the constitution (and, by extension, the flag).
In the process of determining to exclude things from first amendment protection, the onus is to show that there’s a compelling reason to do it (shouting “fire!” is endangerment), not that there’s no compelling reason not to.
Why is everyone getting off on the damned tangents? People trying to argue “it’s not that big a deal” are going after the crap. Trolling is not a reason to limit freedom of expression. The word “desecration” is immaterial.
THE PROBLEM IS ON THE FACE OF IT. It’s a proposal that allows congress to limit non-dangerous dissent. If they do that, then the thing they’re ostensibly protecting isn’t worth protecting.
Well, I can’t imagine the flag-burning issue has gone this far, but lo and behold…
I have in-laws who believe that it is wrong to make jokes about the president or say you think he’s stupid, or dissent from any decision he makes, solely because he’s president. The office alone is reason enough for them to overlook any misjudgement, crime, or Bad Idea that comes out of the White House. They’ve applied a reverence to the office without regard for what the occupant does with that office. (Incidently, they feel the same way about the Pope, and they’re not even catholic.)
And I know they’re not alone. When people become so wrapped up in the physical “things” that they forget the ideals we strive for, that’s when the whole thing starts unraveling. I have no doubt in my mind these people would support a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. It’s a small part of what’s wrong with their skewed opinion of what America is.
Yeah, but so what? If I say “NO!”, it doesn’t really mean anything.
If I say “NO!” right after someone asks whether I support the war, then it means something.
If I say “NO!” right after someone asks whether I support the flag-burning amendment, then it means something else entirely.
Same with burning the flag, right?
You’ll have to explain what your point is, ululate. I’ve missed it.