I’ve never burned a flag. Even at those times when I felt America was committing crimes against humanity, I never felt the urge to go that far.
But there is a very real possibility that the First Amendment may be revised and abridged for the first time in history. Most members of Congress are in favor of an anti-flag burning amendment, and most states may well ratify it.
If that happens, I will proudly stand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol (or as near to it as I can get) and send a flag up in smoke. Because, in that hypothetical situation, the flag will have come to symbolize a government that imprisons people for free speech. And, in that situation, I would feel no more compunction about burning a US flag than I would about burning a Taliban flag.
Want to keep flags from being burned? Don’t pass a flag amendment!!!
Oh don’t be so self-righteous. If you’ve taken history you know that rights can be limited and suspended in times of national crisis and when they present a “clear and present” danger to the populous. During the cold war, the government could do a hell of a lot to you that would have been grossly illegal in other circumstances simply because you showed communist tendencies in a country absolutely crazed about communism. As a nation, we’re presently going through a rather patriotic/nationalistic phase, and burning a flag under these circumstances could indeed be argued as creating an anti-american/pro terrorist sentiment that does, believe it or not, create a clear and present danger.
Oh yeah, and personally I must say that your idea is one of the most stupid things I’ve heard in a long time. You get anywhere near the capitol or pentagon and start a flag on fire, and you’re going to get mobbed. I know I’d throw something at you.
Nonsense. Rights can be usurped by thieves in the same way that an identity can be stolen. But they remain the rights of the victims, just as a stolen car does not belong to the criminal who took it.
And straight into the teary eye of the eagle.
The true looters and pillagers of The Flag are those who treat it like a worthless rag, imbued not with the ideals of liberty, but of intolerance. That same mindset would have forced Jesus to descend from His cross.
I’ve actually thought about this for a few years now, figuring that the day the Senate was expected to pass a fucking flag burning amendment, I’d wait outside Congress with a flag and a match. I suppose recent events complicate things a bit, but it’s most important to stand up for one’s principles when it is most difficult, no?
I’m sure the OP would agree that what the Government did during the red scare was grossly illegal (read:unconstitutional).
No, not really. If that were the case, the flag burning amendment would be moot since it would fall into an exception of the first amendment protection of free speech and laws against flag-burning would be permissaable. Since anti-flag burning laws are, as viewed by the Supreme Court, repugnant to the first amendment, the additional amendment is required.
It always amazes me when this is resurrected every few years to be passed by the house and shot down in the Senate. Supporters of such an amendment get worked into a great rhetorical furor over a largely imaginary threat: no one to speak of in America is burning the flag nowadays, but, somehow, restricing our civil liberties is supposed to make everything better.
I’m not really worried, though. I have faith that the Senate Democrats are partisan enough to vote down any such amendment, national crisis or no. New York Senator Chuck Schumer said something to the effect of, “The answer to flag burning is flag waving.” I’m no real fan of Mr. Schumer’s, but flag waving does seem to be a better solution than censorship.
I hate to post a link to an Onion article in GD as if it’s important or serious, but this seems both relevant and amusing, and it really is pretty decent satire.
These flag burning amendments are some of the oddest creatures around. It’s basically an effort to get people to stop what they’re not doing anyway.
If one of these perversions of logic ever gets passed, the steps of the Capitol will be crowded with tclouie’s burning flags for the first time in their lives.
I’ll be there too, except I won’t be burning a flag. Keep in mind that the amendment talks about the “physical desecration” of the flag. (I was unable to get the actual wording of the proposed amendment because so many of the sites dealing with flag burning have been closed, e.g., http://www.esquilax.com/flag/). I’d rather push the envelope so to speak. Obviously burning a flag would be physical desecration, but what about spitting on it? What about slapping it around some. If I wear an American flag as a headband and it gets all sweaty is that desecration or is that honoring it. What if I make underwear out of it? Patriotic or blasphemous? What if I use it to diaper an infant? Who’s to say what my intent is? I could just have bad taste in expressing my patriotism.
And how shall we define the American flag? Certainly the item draped around my uncle’s coffin would qualify, but what about something we cut out of the newspaper? It’s red, white and blue on the front but advertising a tire sale on the back. What about something that’s homemade? What if there are 51 stars or the red and white stripes are transposed? What if the colors are wrong? How shall we define red white and blue?
Spooje, this does seem to be an odd time to be bringing this up, but an absence of flag burning activity has never stopped Congress from filing flag burning amendments.
And NightRabbit, shame on you for calling tclouie self-righteous and then threatening to throw something at him if he ever acts on his principles.
Just want to add that as a non-American(Irish), this debate has always confused me. For a country that prides itself so much on personal freedom I would have assumed that you should be allowed to wipe your arse with the thing and then burn it if you wanted to(unless it’s not your property).
Why is wearing a pair of boxers or a bikini etc with the pattern of the Stars and Stripes not also thrown into the storm.
And if people could get worked up enough about it for it to constitute a “clear and present danger” then I think those people need to seek some help for anger management and getting their priorities in order.
I believe, technically, it’s SUPPOSED to be wrong (as improper as letting the flag touch the ground) to use the flag in any sort of advertising, etc. But that’s gone right the hell out the window.
Of course, should the flag-burning amendment be passed, the flag shall no longer be a fitting emblem for displaying in honor of my country, so my defense of burning it shall be this article:
The only clear and present danger is to the person who executes their right to free speech by burning the flag when some knee-jerk reactionary throws something at them.
Uh, Lib? I think he’s saying that if you start a FIRE on the Capital steps, you’re gonna be arrested. Not for the burning the flag, but for starting a FIRE.
While I appreciate your patriotic zeal, you need to think about exactly what you’re saying. Assaulting someone when they are taking an action that hurts no one, but only makes you mad is pretty ignorant. Don’t be that person.
An anti-flag burning Amendment would be ridiculous. So is assuming that only Democrats would vote against such an Amendment.
I really don’t often do this, but this calls for it:
[Sua pulls out the Lawyer Card] Son, you really haven’t the first clue about the First Amendment jurisprudence and the “clear and present danger” doctrine. You further have little conception of when, if, or how the federal government may limit or suspend constitutional rights. Do a Google search on “Abraham Lincoln AND habeus corpus.”
[gently, reverently, Sua places the Lawyer Card back in his wallet]
And guess who is liable for arrest in that circumstance? Guin, I think NightRabbit wasn’t talking about police action. I believe the words “I’d throw something at you” means vigilantism.
D’oh! I guess I should have looked more closely. My fault.
Still, I do think it would be stupid to do it on the Capital steps, just because I don’t think you’d want to start a FIRE there. However, I do agree I’d be burning every flag I could get my grubby little paws on.
Let’s look at the idea more closely. Burning the flag as an act of desecration would be outlawed, but burning it for disposal would be OK, even dignified. Wearing it on your shirt, or maybe the front of your pants, as a sign of patriotic pride would be OK, but wearing it on your rump would be an act of desecration and illegal (except that a small patch at belt height might be OK). Add your own list of comparisons.
So the proponents actually want a Constitutional Amendment that bans, not an act, but a political attitude. It would have equal stature with another Amendment that guarantees free political speech.
Try spending your energy on real problems, folks. This one is imaginary. There’s no epidemic of flag-burning festivals every evening in the liberal parts of your town, is there? When’s the last time you even saw it in the US?
