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?
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.
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 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’m very glad that my Congressional Rep., Artur Davis (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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We’ve passed many a law with less justification in the public good.
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?
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?
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 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?
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 . . . .
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.
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.
