I agree with tclouie that free speech requires that flag-burning be legal. (I regard the flag-burners as worse than Nazis, but they ar entitled to their rights.)
However, would tclouie be equally upset at restrictions on other despicable types of free speech, such as:
– burning a cross in front of the home of a Black family
– limiting campaign contributions
– limiting personal expenditures on political issues (part of the McCain bill passed by the Senate)
– keeping anti-abortion demonstrators far away from abortions clinics.
I have a standing appointment to bail my wife out of jail is the flag-burning amendment gets passed. Why? Well, we can’t both go to jail, somebody has to feed the cats.
One of the rights that the flag represents is the right to burn it. You want to fireproof the flag? Great. Don’t make it illegal to burn it. Make flag desecration an act of horrific bad taste, but don’t elevate it to a crime. Simply sigh and walk on. Then be grateful that you live in a country where even such egregious displays are not rewarded with the firing squad.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the flag. I’ve worn the uniform. I love the fact that every time I see a flag, I’m looking at one which someone has the right to burn, but chooses to fly instead. Pass the flag-burning amendment and I’ll lose that.
Besides, nobody expects it to pass. It’s just introduced so gummint types can go back to their constituents and say, “See what I did for y’all?”
kid: Hey! Who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
rolled up amendment: I’m not garbage.
(singing)
I’m an amendment to be, yes an amendment to be,
and I’m hopin’ that they’ll ratify me.
There’s a lot of flag burners who have got too much freedom.
I wanna make it legal for policemen to beat 'em,
cause there’s limits to our liberties.
'Least I hope and pray that there are,
cause those liberal freaks go too far.
kid: Well why can’t we just make a law against flag burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional.
But if we changed the Constitution…
kid: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you’re catching on!
Bart: What the hell is this?
Lisa: It’s one of those campy 70’s throwbacks that appeals to Generation-X’ers.
Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.
Kid: What if people say you’re not good enough to be in the Constitution?
Amendment (singing):
Then I’ll crush all opposition to me,
and I’ll make Ted Kennedy pay.
If he fights back, I’ll say that he’s gay.
Congressman: Good news, Amendment! They ratified ya! You’re in the U.S. Constitution.
…and of course burning the flag is clear and present danger to, um, who again?
Of all the ironies in our government, banning flag burning is the biggest. Consider it this way: should they ban burning the Constitution, which provides Americans with the right to burn it?
But…in practical terms, it’s usually only applied when it’s used to attack someone actually particpating in the argument. He achieved the letter, but not the spirit of the law. If he had called, say…spooge a Nazi, he’d have the unspoken requirement as well as the spoken one.
A fine distinction, but I’d have to rule just on the “yes” side, barely. But only barely.
And I won’t even get into the utter, mind-boggling stupidity of comparing a few flag-burners (who I have contempt for) to a society who killed…what? 12 million people give or take? <shakes head>
Burning a cross, to me, would be repugnant but legal and constitutional as long as the cross were not placed on the family’s property. Also, I do accept that there can be restrictions on the starting of fires in public. I would not burn anything, no matter how cool the symbolism, if I thought it presented an actual physical danger from fire. However, a big wooden cross sends up a hell of a lot more sparks than a flag.
A couple of years ago I saw a confrontation between pro- and anti-immigrant protesters. A woman from the anti-immigrant side tried to ignite a Mexican flag being held by two little kids. a) that particular flag did not belong to her, and b) somebody would have been hurt if that flag had gone up. She should have been arrested.
Buy your own flag, make sure you’re well away from all other bystanders and flammable objects, and THEN burn it!!!
As for limits on campaign contributions: I support those. I do not support the recent legal theory that money constitutes free speech.
Anti-abortion protesters have every right to protest on public ground, as long as they do not impede access or physically threaten people or property.
Where could one legally burn a flag today? It seems that most (if not all) public places would be subject to fire safety and/or pollution laws. What about public property? I know I can’t burn leaves in my yard. Could I legally burn a flag there? What about a trash can full of flags? I imagine it varies from state to state, but what is the general law of the land?
I don’t know about tclouie, but I am upset about the middle two. The first one is not a free speech issue because it involves trespassing and vandalism. If someone wishes to burn a cross in front of their own house, that’s fine with me, but I really don’t see how anyone could claim First Amendment protection for doing it in front of someone else’s house. As for the last one, I do not consider 15 feet to be “far away”. You have the right to say what you want. You do not have the right to yell what you want in someone’s ear.
Stupidity is a cherished American tradition, and the right of free speech must include the right to say incredibly stupid crap.
Maybe a ban on dumbshit Congressmen? . . . Naah, the major parties would never go for it.
Tclouie,
Looks like we can expect quite a crowd there, on Flag Burning Day, for the festivities. Why don’t we call an emergency Dopefest, and we can mop up our beer spills with the charred remnants of Old Former Glory?
Tris
“What you cannot enforce, do not command” ~ Sophocles ~
The weird part is that the PROPER way to dispose of an old flag is to burn it. This has been an established part of military protocol in this country for years. When I was in the army I participated in this ceremony. I f such a dumb-ass amendment were passed, the military would have to rewrite its own laws.
Sua, thanks for giving the simple answer that a dissenter obviously doesn’t know his/her law. I simply don’t believe that flag burning is against the constitution. I can’t say it better than the dissent of Stevens, and I’m paraphrasing a bit from US vs. Eichman:
In a time like the present in which terrorism is both a real and escalated threat, I don’t see how some lunatic’s desire to burn a flag would come before the whole of the community’s emotional and personal security. In this case, using Steven’s words, “societal interest” for security comes before someone who thinks burning a flag is the only way to get his/her point across.
As an outsider (Canadian), I am frequently amazed at the virulence with which this topic is discussed in the United States. Part of my amazement has to do with the fact that, while officially there is a separation of church and state in your country, as an overwhelmingly Christian country, you seemingly ignore the old testament commandment against idolatry – especially in relationship to your flag.
Scene: There’s a person on the steps of the Capitol pouring lighter fluid over a flag. There’s another man in a faded field jacket standing near him. The second man has that “ex-military” look about him. The first man sets fire to the flag and waves it around as it burns.
First man: “I’m exercising my Constitutional right to burn this flag!”
Second man: “Uh huh.”
A reporter approaches and asks the second man why he didn’t try to stop the first man.
Second man: “Well, he wasn’t breaking the law…” Then, pointing to the flag insignia on his old field jacket, he says, “…but let’s see him try to burn this one.”
You express your First Amendment rights your way; I’ll do it mine.
I would oppose an amendment making flag burning illegal because, if nothing else, a lot of folks wouldn’t be as understanding about it as the second man above was.
I’m sorry, but what does “flag desecration” have to do with terrorism?
No one’s “personal security” is threatened by flag burning unless the flag burner is actually putting someone in danger of being set on fire, for which contingency we already have plenty of laws. (No one is claiming you have the right to burn a flag in a crowded theater…)
I don’t even know what “the community’s emotional security” means. The President currently has around 90% approval rating. Clearly, it’s important to “the community’s emotional security” that we have strong leadership at a time like this. Therefore, public criticism of the President should be outlawed.
I’ve got a small flag which I got when I lived in Washington and went and stood on the sidewalk for a Presidential inaugural parade. I’ve kept it for all these years, and recently I moved it over to my windowsill. But if Congress and the states pass a flag desecration amendment, it’s going to be charcoal.
The virulence puzzles me, too, bagkitty. It’s almost a requirement to preface one’s defense of flag burning with some statement about how disgusting the act is to you, otherwise you may be seen as some sort of slime ball. However, I must admit that the idea of someone burning the flag on the Capitol steps really doesn’t get me too worked up.
I really wonder what is behind the burning (pun or not, if you like) vitriol that some have over it. I will confess to being a weepy patriot at times so I should be offended at least a bit, but I’m not. I know that I am not numb, and that I have my share of raw nerves, but I find that I am much more bothered by certain lucid and articulate comments found on SDMB that challenge some of my core beliefs.
God those people at The Onion have satire down good! Just the right mix of reality with going a little bit beyond!!!
Well, Demise, the latter assumption may be “ridiculous” but it wouldn’t be very far off the mark unfortunately. Of the 37 votes against the flag burning amendment when it last came up in the Senate, I counted only 4 that were provided by Republicans (and one of those has since defected from the party). In the House, I counted 10 Republicans among the 124 “nays”. [Go to http://www.aclu.org/congress/congress.html ]
So, sorry to rain on your parade, but I think that VarlosZ’s statement about having faith in the Senate Democrats to stop this nuttiness can pretty much stand on its merits, although it does look like they need the help of a few Republican votes (or did last time when the Senate was more Republican) because unfortunately some Democrats do vote for this amendment.
I agree with tclouie on this. I must admit that this issue does get rather subtle and some of my “friends” (like the ACLU national organization) disagree with me…But I really think that this is a case where limits on what might be considered a sort of free expression can be justified by the danger it poses to society. Our government is supposed to represent all the people and not simply be auctioned off to the highest bidder. An expansive view of free speech is that those with the loudest megaphone don’t get to drown out everyone else.
The only thing I will concede is that a better way to go about this may be not to limit contributions but instead to have public financing of campaigns…and maybe make agreeing to voluntary limits necessary to receive the public financing. That way, people with enough money can still choose to use it to promote their positions but the system will hopefully prevent the wealthy and powerful from being able to drown out everyone else!
I should have mentioned… I have been involved in a number of flag burnings… some American, several South African (apartheid era), couple of Israeli, and even a Canadian flag. I have always considered them bits of cloth, and think it must less disgusting to char a bit of cloth than employ violence against real people. Frankly, I don’t think the action is disgusting at all, I think it can be justified as a way of avoiding violent conflict… better to attack the symbol of a government you are angry with than to actually harm an individual who might represent the government you are angry with… I don’t think that it should be undertaken lightly, but nor would I shy away from doing so again in the future.
