# For fuck's sake, the flag burning amendment AGAIN?! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 22, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434 "2005-06-22T20:45:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/201 "2005-06-23T18:05:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Actually an interesting point of law: the Virginia law created a prima facie case for intent to intimidate – that is, if you burned a cross, the law presumed you intended to intimidate, with no other evidence. Burning a cross, according to Virginia, WAS intimidation, period. And I disagree with this decision. I don’t think the government can presume to divine a mental intent for an act which can theoretically have more than one motive. I once saw a documentary on White Supremacist groups in the US which showed some KKK types burning a cross as some sort of quasi-religious ceremony. They were out in the middle of nowhere on some farmland belonging to one of the members. There was no audience but the members themselves, and no one to intimidate. There was a lot of ritualistic chanting and praying involved, and I remember the “pastor” (or whatever he was called) explaining all the so-called spiritual signifance of cross burning (something to do with “glorifying” Jesus). It was all complete bullshit, of course (and all the more disturbing because there were robed and hooded children involved), but there did not seem to be (at least in this instance) any kind of motive of intimidation or threats towards anyone else. Can it still be called intimidation if there is no one there to intimidate? ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/202 "2005-06-23T18:06:31Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > His opinion counts as much as your "I’m fighting for a country not a cloth’ relatives. But the country he fought to defend has always stood for the concept that his opinion should not be allowed to prevent other people from expressing their opinion. It’s a pretty simple concept, but hard to execute sometimes. Or more eloquently than I can say: > [@President Andrew Shepard](#): > > America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve got to want it bad, because it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the ‘land of the free’? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the ‘land of the free.’” ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/203 "2005-06-23T18:18:57Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > What I’m trying to demonstrate with my llama figurine example (I almost said penguin figurine at first, but I realized that really might be a sacred symbol to Linux fanatics 😉 ) is that emotional hurtfullness should not be a valid reason to make any law, especially one that abridges something as important as free speech. Desecrating a flag may be hurtful to you, but maybe it isn’t to me. You likely don’t give a shit about llama figurines, but my grandfather died in a car accident while racing home from Woolworths to get my mother a llama figurine in time for her birthday party. > > Ok, not really. But it’s possible that something as mundane to you as a llama figurine is as “sacred” to me as the American Flag is to you or your family. What standard will we have for judging whether desecrating something is so hurtful that it must be protected above our right to free expression? Can only one person find it that sacred? How about a hundred? Over 50 percent of the population? > > You brought up religious books. Is any book that _anybody_ finds sacred to be protected from desecration? Or will the gov’t set up a committee to judge which religions are valid enough to have their book deemed non-desecratable? I’m sure you see the problems with that. > > I doubt I’m going to convince you of my way of thinking of this, but I hope you can at least see where I’m coming from. I do see where you’re coming from revtim, and I applaud the civil tone with whcih you explain yourself. I try to match tone with tone. I bit my tongue after I wrote the religious book thing because it would open too big a can of worms. My mistake. So I guess it all boils down to whether you believe burning the flag is “political expression” or an “expression of hate”. Since I believe it to be latter, I have no problem with prohibiting it. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/204 "2005-06-23T18:27:11Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > What I’m trying to demonstrate with my llama figurine example (I almost said penguin figurine at first, but I realized that really might be a sacred symbol to Linux fanatics 😉 ) is that emotional hurtfullness should not be a valid reason to make any law, especially one that abridges something as important as free speech. Desecrating a flag may be hurtful to you, but maybe it isn’t to me. You likely don’t give a shit about llama figurines, but my grandfather died in a car accident while racing home from Woolworths to get my mother a llama figurine in time for her birthday party. > > Ok, not really. But it’s possible that something as mundane to you as a llama figurine is as “sacred” to me as the American Flag is to you or your family. What standard will we have for judging whether desecrating something is so hurtful that it must be protected above our right to free expression? Can only one person find it that sacred? How about a hundred? Over 50 percent of the population? > > You brought up religious books. Is any book that _anybody_ finds sacred to be protected from desecration? Or will the gov’t set up a committee to judge which religions are valid enough to have their book deemed non-desecratable? I’m sure you see the problems with that. > > I doubt I’m going to convince you of my way of thinking of this, but I hope you can at least see where I’m coming from. I do see where you’re coming from revtim, and I applaud the civil tone with whcih you explain yourself. I try to match tone with tone. I bit my tongue after I wrote the religious book thing because it would open too big a can of worms. My mistake. So I guess it all boils down to whether you believe burning the flag is “political expression” or an “expression of hate”. Since I believe it to be latter, I have no problem with prohibiting it. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/205 "2005-06-23T18:27:17Z")
But that’s mind-reading, that is presuming an intent you cannot prove. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/206 "2005-06-23T18:29:34Z")
I’m very glad that my Congressional Rep., [Artur Davis](http://www.house.gov/arturdavis/%5BURL=http://www.house.gov/arturdavis/) (who grew up in rural poverty in Alabama and graduated cum Laude from Harvard) was the only rep from Alabama to vote against making this is a law. I sent him the following letter: Dear Representative Davis: Please accept my sincere appreciation and admiration for your opposition to the flag-burning proposition. Your support of the First Amendment in a time of extreme jingoism and sound-bite philosophers demonstrates that moral courage is a trait you actively exemplify rather than idly praise. I am very proud that you are the representative for my district and I will gladly support you with my vote and in any other way that I am able. I visited D.C. last week for the first time since childhood. Though I am a passionate student of American history, by my third day there I had long since lost count of and even largely stopped noticing the statues that seem to be on every street corner in the city. One statue remained with me however, for I thought that it was the most beautiful both aesthetically and symbolically: it was the Statue of Freedom that is on display in the basement of the Congressional office building, the model for the statue that stands atop the Capitol Dome. I was moved by the fact that the designers of the Capitol placed Freedom above the building, above Congress and above the flag itself. Thank you for doing the same. Sincerely, JCD ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/207 "2005-06-23T18:30:18Z")
Shit, my first and hopefully last double-post. Sorry. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/208 "2005-06-23T18:45:38Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Stop right there. The burning of a cross, or the painting of a swastika on a synagogue door, or similar acts already defined as hate crimes are not political expression, of the type we absolutely protect as one of our fundamental principles. They are not attempts at “expressive conduct”, they are acts intended to instill fear in their targets, nothing more. The actions you describe are not “speech” at all, any more than my brandishing a weapon at you is “speech” - they are assault. But you cross the line (no pun intended) when you paint on someone else’s door. Should it be illegal to display a swastika in your yard? How about a confederate battle flag? How about a hammer and cycle? After all, speech that doesn’t arouse emotions hardly needs protection. We don’t have a first amendment so that people can sing the praises of apple pie. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/209 "2005-06-23T18:52:35Z")
Okay, paint the swastika on a billboard you rented across the street from the synagogue. The crime under discussion isn’t vandalism. It’s still an act of hate, not speech - intended to cause fear or intimidate. We do have laws defining hate crimes pretty specifically, and even GD threads discussing them. They are not protected by \*political \* free speech rights. Nor do hate crimes include flag-burning under any definition. It’s “sickle”, btw. The Soviet flag would have been much improved if it had been a picture of a hammer and a Harley, though; thanks for the thought. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/210 "2005-06-23T18:59:47Z")
I’m a First Amendment absolutist, I uphold the right to scream “Theater!” in a crowded fire. A man who burns a cross on his own lawn in support of his morally repugnant views has every right to do so. We should have the courage to face opposing views squarely and without flinching. If a man wishes to reveal himself as a racist asshole, we should be grateful for the candor. Inferring an intent from an action beyond the action _itself_ is mind-reading. As repugnant as “hate speech” is, it is still speech, and as such, beyond our rightful control. Fred Phelps has as much right to express his loathsome opinions as I. I cannot sacrifice his rights without sacrificing mine, they are identical. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/211 "2005-06-23T19:00:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Okay, paint the swastika on a billboard you rented across the street from the synagogue. The crime under discussion isn’t vandalism. It’s still an act of hate, not speech - intended to cause fear or intimidate. How far away from the synagogue does it have to be until it turns from intimidation into speech? One block? 3 blocks? 10 miles? > [@](#): > > We do have laws defining hate crimes pretty specifically, and even GD threads discussing them. They are not protected by \*political \* free speech rights. Nor do hate crimes include flag-burning under any definition. It exists as law, therefore it must be correct? But you’re also mixing “crimes” with “speech” here. > [@](#): > > It’s “sickle”, btw. The Soviet flag would have been much improved if it had been a picture of a hammer and a Harley, though; thanks for the thought. Sheesh. Now you’re advocating a ban on improper spelling. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/212 "2005-06-23T19:08:22Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > How far away from the synagogue does it have to be until it turns from intimidation into speech? One block? 3 blocks? 10 miles? Every case has its own details, and every quibble you insert into this thread takes us further away from the topic. Unless you’re willing to claim that flag burning is hate speech like swastika-painting? > [@](#): > > Sheesh. Now you’re advocating a ban on improper spelling. 🙂 We’ve passed many a law with less justification in the public good. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/213 "2005-06-23T19:09:11Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > I do see where you’re coming from revtim, and I applaud the civil tone with whcih you explain yourself. I try to match tone with tone. > > I bit my tongue after I wrote the religious book thing because it would open too big a can of worms. My mistake. > > So I guess it all boils down to whether you believe burning the flag is “political expression” or an “expression of hate”. Since I believe it to be latter, I have no problem with prohibiting it. I appreciate your rethinking of the religious book issue. Regarding “political expression” vs. “expression of hate”, how do you know that it is hate that the protestor is expressing? I can tell you that if I were to burn a flag, it would be in protest of this amendment, and I can assure you that it is because I love this country that I would be so compelled to protest this abridgement of the right to free speech. If I hated this country, why would I care enough to protest? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/214 "2005-06-23T19:15:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Every case has its own details, and every quibble you insert into this thread takes us further away from the topic. IOW, you can’t back up your own assertion on this with a logical argument. > [@](#): > > Unless you’re willing to claim that flag burning is hate speech like swastika-painting? I don’t know where you getting that from, as I clearly don’t support this amendment nor have I ever called flag burning “hate speech.” ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/215 "2005-06-23T19:17:54Z")
> [@Indyellen](#): > > > [@Northern Piper](#): > > > > How does it affect the checks & balances? And what’s wrong with overturning a SCOTUS decision that the elected officials do not agree with, anyway? > > Thank you for the post; it was very informative and you make some good points. (This is not a sarcastic comment.) I _did_ point out that IANAL, it was just my initial reading of things. > > However, you seem to have missed my second post: > > > [@Indyellen](#): > > > > OK, I’ll grant that it doesn’t appear to be a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers de facto, but it _is_ a violation in spirit. I did see that post as well, but I’m afraid I disagree with your comment that constitutional amendments are a violation of the spirit of the separation of powers. I would respectfully suggest that both the legal effect, and the spirit of the separation of powers are completely consistent with the elected legislative branch changing a law, whether an ordinary statute or the Constitution, if the elected legislative branch disagrees with the interpretation that the unelected courts have put on that law. Let me ask you a question: in your opinion, was the abolition of slavery by Amendment XIII a violation of the spirit of the separation of powers? > [@Indyellen](#): > > I’ll defer on discussing the legalities and just agree that I think it’s a STUPID idea when there are much bigger things we could be worrying about. On this point, we are certainly in agreement. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/216 "2005-06-23T19:24:47Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > IOW, you can’t back up your own assertion on this with a logical argument. Wrong. Hate crimes are already well-defined under the law. You can object to that if you like, but start your own damn thread if you insist - or go into GD and catch up first. > [@](#): > > I don’t know where you getting that from, as I clearly don’t support this amendment nor have I ever called flag burning “hate speech.” I get that from your attempting to argue, as in the above, against the concept of hate crimes, in a thread _devoted to the fucking flag-burning amendment_. You’re normally better than this. What’s the problem? ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/217 "2005-06-23T19:30:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I’m a First Amendment absolutist, I uphold the right to scream “Theater!” in a crowded fire. A man who burns a cross on his own lawn in support of his morally repugnant views has every right to do so. We should have the courage to face opposing views squarely and without flinching. If a man wishes to reveal himself as a racist asshole, we should be grateful for the candor. > > Inferring an intent from an action beyond the action _itself_ is mind-reading. As repugnant as “hate speech” is, it is still speech, and as such, beyond our rightful control. Fred Phelps has as much right to express his loathsome opinions as I. I cannot sacrifice his rights without sacrificing mine, they are identical. This is the way I interpret the First Amendment as well. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/218 "2005-06-23T19:37:53Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > By banning flag burning, you’re shitting on everything the flag stands for. And thereby desecrating the flag, which means it needs to be given respectful funeral, which some people will want to do in public as a form of protest of the behaviour that shames America and renders the flag unfit to be flown, and . . . . Oh, the humanity! ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/219 "2005-06-23T19:57:03Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wrong. Hate crimes are already well-defined under the law. You can object to that if you like, but start your own damn thread if you insist - or go into GD and catch up first. Umm, wasn’t it you who first brought up swastikas? And, are you certain that it’s illegal to put up a billboard with a swastika on it across the street from a synagogue? Didn’t the SCOTUS let stand the lower court’s decision to allow the NAZIs to march in Skokie? Seems like pretty much the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2005, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434/220 "2005-06-23T20:07:19Z")
Yes, I \*mentioned \* swastika-painting, in response to \*\*Bricker’\*\*s inappropriate attempt to equate flag-burning with established hate crimes with established reasoning behind them. He was wrong to do so and that needed to be pointed out. He hasn’t been back, and the claim hasn’t been pressed further by anyone but you. Look, pal, if you don’t think hate crime is relevant to a flag-burning discussion, you have no reason to continue yammering away about it. If you do think it’s relevant, then explain yourself. But please accept a little responsibility. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-fucks-sake-the-flag-burning-amendment-again/309434.md?page=12)