IMO it’s distasteful.
I liken it to hate-speech. We seem to have no problem making laws against that.
And if it takes an amendment to let Congress makes such laws, so be it.
Some want to say it just a symbol. Maybe to them. I have a relative who fought in WWII (in Europe) and to him that flag is a piece of America, not just a piece of cloth. Burning the flag for protest purposes spits on him and those who didn’t make it home alive.
There are myriad other ways of showing dismay/protest against the country and/or its government and its policies. Prohibiting this particular one is fine with me.
I hate any sort of slippery-slope arguments, I find them totally unconvincing, so please don’t give me one. I take this issue on its own merits.
I think your question is a fair one, but not really all that complicated. I am not a lawyer in any way, but as I understand it, some legal definitions of assault include “placing someone in reasonable fear of harm.”
To me, the distinction between making it criminal to burn a cross and keeping the freedom to burn a flag is that the former meets such a definition of assault and the latter does not (as Diogenes and Scott Plaid have noted).
If you like, we can also make it criminal to send an Italian person a dead fish wrapped in newspaper.
Free speech zealot reporting in…albeit, it must be said, one who hasn’t really ever had to personally worry about what a burning cross might foreshadow for my own family.
Even so…even so. I have to admit that, in my opinion, there really isn’t a fundamental difference between a burning cross and a burning flag. It should be legal to burn one wherever it is legal to burn the other, and it should be legal to burn both wherever it is legal to burn a milk carton. Similarly, it should generally be legal to paint a swastika on your own property, but not on the property of others.* People should be held responsible for criminal acts, not for ideas or symbols. I don’t much care for “hate crime” laws which seek to impose additional penalties on the basis of political intent. The idea of penalties for “hate speech” has always seemed profoundly ridiculous to me. There’s a world of difference between being insulted and being assaulted.
*I recognize that some communities have standards about what sort of modifications you can make to your property…bottom line, if you are allowed to paint a picture of the Easter Bunny on your garage, you should be able to put up a picture of Hermann Goering if you want. Whether the neighbors will invite you over afterward is your own lookout.
Uh, cite? Name ONE law against hate-speech, that’s not targetting HARASSING OTHERS, and I’ll agree with you that banning hate speech is wrong.
So it’s “distasteful.” So is Paris Hilton. I don’t see anyone trying to outlaw her, do you?
I have several relatives who fought in WWII, and they’d probably be the first to tell you that they were fighting for our country and to stop a bunch of murderous, fascist assholes. Anyone who gave their lives, literally, to save a FLAG, deserves to die. When you start putting more value on symbols than you do the things those symbols stand for, you’re in big trouble.
Yep, that there are. So what? There’s lots of ways to kill or protect ourselves that don’t require a gun-so should we outlaw guns? No, of course not. Same with freedom of speech.
Yes we do. We do not have any laws against hate speech. Hate speech is perfectly legal and constitutionally protected.
If it’s not a symbol what else is it?
It’s literally a "piece of America or symbolically a piece America? Why should your relative’s symbolic conception of the flag be the controlling one for everyone else? What if I decide that citronella candles are a “piece of America?” Do I get an Aamendment too?
That’s your opinion.
Even if the symbolic intent is to “spit on veterans” (which it seldom is), so the fuck what? Should Americans be mandated not to insult veterans. Should it be illegal to call them “baby killers?” Do veterans have some special right not to be offended? Are you going to ban any type of expression whatever which could conceivably be perceived a insulting to veterans?
Well it’s not fine with me and you haven’t shown any compelling case why the Constitution should be changed to allow free thought to be censored in this way.
No need for slippery slope here. A flag burning prohibition is sufficiently stupid, pointless, disgusting and anti-American in and of itself that it’s status as a disturbing precedent need not be even brought out.
So, not hurting these people’s feeling is so important that we must amend the Consititution?
If I feel similarly strongly about, say, a plastic llama figurine, is that enough to abridge your free speech to protect my feelings? Some want to say it’s just a symbol. Maybe to them.
How many people have to feel strongly about plastic llama figurines before we declare is something that may not be desecrated?
No, because I regard the intrusion on political expression as slight, especially given that we can legally restrict other forms of expressive conduct, such a cross-burning – even if the cross in question is in my own back yard.
Admittedly, the burning of a cross has very strong associations with hateful speech. But hateful speech must be tolerated - indeed, it must be given as much if not more room as speech that doesn’t rankle.
But to be consistent with those cases, I cannot support a political expression rationale here.
Standing alone, without considering other cases, just as a principle unto itself? I agree that flag-burning is a form of political expression that should be protected sui generis.
I (and I think others) am having trouble seeing the second page of the link that was posted with the vote results. Here is the official roll call, unfortunately not sorted by state.
I had this issue figured out years ago. There’s no need for an amendment. All that has to be done is to pass a law authorizing citizens to use non-lethal force to prevent flag desecration. Protestors may still burn their flags, but they better pray that John Wayne isn’t close by.
I am against the proposed amendment, but still, burning the flag is just plain wrong, and you shouldn’t do it. Don’t shit on the Liberty Bell, either.
No, I’m talking about a specific law that targets crosses. It would be legal for my neighbor to burn a giant pentagram on my property, if I give him permission… but not a giant cross.
Let me add my voice to the chorus of those who do not find it necessary that Bricker or anyone else should oppose the Amendment for the exact same reasons that I oppose it. I welcome anyone to my side in opposing this legislation no matter what their reasons are. A property rights argument is just fine with me and I think it’s a valid argument on its own merits that may have more appeal to conservatives than free speech for hippies.
You know, revtim asked to me to give an opinion, and I did. Nice of you to chime in on it and call me a putz, considering I tried to write it in a soft-toned earnest manner. Guess that doesn’t count in your book. So…
Gee whiz, your relatives also fought in WWII and, OMFG, were fighting for America? What a coincidence! So obviously their opinion is the correct one.
Sorry asswipe. For my particular relative, the flag is special and was a comfort to him over there. His opinion counts as much as your "I’m fighting for a country not a cloth’ relatives.
Don’t like it - eat shit and live (but then you probably already do that).
Too bad there isn’t a smiley with a dick in its mouth because it would be really useful right now.
If that’s true, then that’s wrong. As long as you guys are following safety regs, and burning on your OWN lawn, not the lawn of the Jewish guy across the street, I have no problem with it.
There goes dinner tonight. Guess will have to settle for linguini with red gravy.
[nitpick]The dead fish was indication of a fait accompli. This is not “placing someone in reasonable fear of harm”, as the harm has already occurred.[/nitpick]
You know what? You’ve convinced me. As the High Holy Poobah and Rights Dispenser Extraordinaire, I hereby rescind your right to speak freely, including any right to ask your quick question. Satisfied now? Don’t answer that. Not freely, anyway.
I find this prohibition to be just as stupid and anti-American as any proposed prohbition on flag burning. As long as said cross-burners are not trespassing or acting without permission - and especially when the act does not involve threats or attempted intimidation of anyone else - then I can’t see why it should be illegal.
