Wow, seems that a ton of people have a feeling one way or another. Everyone has the right to free speech, however… The symbol, that you feel is just a token symbol,is in fact not just a symbol. When over 6000 people die, and MY government considers an amendment to “officially ban the burning of the American Flag”, I tend to support My country. I realize that many people haven’t been touched directly by the events of September 11th. (yeah right) Please, drop the politics and support YOUR country. We need unity!!!
Ah yes, trample the Constitution, but never the flag.
What’s more important, folks?
Croaker,
Denying the jingoist desire to replace the substance of freedom with the symbol for that freedom is supporting my country, but you, and at least half the congress just don’t understand what free speech is, nor why it is fundamental to freedom.
I don’t burn my flag all that often. Only once, in fact, the last time the morons in Congress passed a law against it. Then I did burn one. It sucked, but you have to take the bitter with the sweet, and protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and elected.
Tris
“The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness…This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” ~ Plato ~
I think EVERYONE ought to burn the Federal flag.
After all, Federal politicians wipe their asses on that flag every day.
Thanks to jshore for doing the leg work on those Congressional votes. I had been trying to muster the enthusiasm.
Guin, your point is meaningless. The OP and previous discussion generally postulate the passing of a flag-burning amendment… at which point, the Constitution will definitively not be “trampled” by forbidding flag burning.
There are plenty of arguments to make against a flag burning Constitutional amendment, but one that doesn’t fly is the idea that the Constitution will be violated somehow by the action.
- Rick
To amplify what Sua said a little (but only a little), NightRabbit, “clear and present danger” is no longer the guiding doctrine in free speech cases. For further insight, I suggest Thomas Emerson’s excellent book The System of Freedom of Expression. Cites available upon request.
Bricker: Not that the Constitution would be violated in a legal sense–a constitutional amendment can’t be unconstitutional by definition (unless maybe it’s the “Too Many Dakotas” Amendment). But a “Flag Desecration Amendment” would violate the ideals of liberty which the Constitution properly protects. It would also “violate” the Constitution in the sense of adding an (IMO) useless, jingoistic excrescence to it–and right smack dab in the middle of one of the most important parts of the Constitution, the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn’t need any asterisks.
croaker67: Once again, “flag desecration” really has nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the United States. Simply invoking the atrocity from September 11 does not justify any idea or proposal.
I’m reminded of this Michael Kinsley column.
You didn’t rain on my parade, but I do thank you for the cite. It’s extremely dissapointing that there were so few votes against a flag burning Amendment. It looks like I may have to stand in line to show my pyrotechnic displeasure should such an Amendment be ratified.
Perhaps I’m going over old ground here, but felt obligated to respond to December.
Are you serious? How can you suggest that making a symbolic political gesture (however repugnant it is to you) somehow compares to genocide? Gee, that Hitler was a bad guy and all, but at least he didn’t disagree with my political philosophy…
Mostly apples and oranges here. Burning a cross on someone’s lawn isn’t just despicable free speech. It’s intimidation. I would support someone’s right to burn a cross, as an act of political speech, but when that act crosses the line to become a personalized threat to another individual the act changes from political expression to assault. I don’t have a first amendment right to say to you, “Change your political views or I’ll break every bone in your body.”
Likewise with the anti-abortion demonstrators. These demonstrators aren’t being prevented from expressing their political views. They’re being prevented from interfering with other citizens exercizing their freedoms. They can say whatever they want – they just can’t physically interfere with people. How would you suggest we deal with a peace protestor who verbally and physically harangued people trying to enter an Armed Forces enlistment center to the extent they were prevented from entering?
[…applauding and saluting Rysdad…]
No wonder I admire you so much.
I’m a bit puzzled by your comment about our seeming worship of the flag at the same level we would a God. I think that you’re overestimating the amount of religious fervor in our country to begin with, and very few people actually hold the same sort of reverence for the U.S. flag that they would hold in a God (and if they do they need a priority check). What we do love is how great (at least in our opinion) our country is and the flag is a symbol of our love for it.
So when someone starts burning flags because they’re not happy with some of our trade policies, for example, they seem to be blowing things out of proportion by declaring that our country as a whole is worthless (and if they don’t think it’s worthless than they are promoting a lot of people inferring that that is what they are saying).
And beyond that maybe our trade policies, continuing with the example, do need to be examined, but a lot of people disgusted with flag-burning are aware that when you resort to that level of extremism you’ve managed to get the other side to stop listening before you start talking; at that point it doesn’t matter how good your argument is you’re not likely to be able to provoke any changes for the better if people refuse to hear what you are saying.
Maybe this will help to understand the point of view: what if someone took a picture of somebody you had a great deal of love and respect for and burned it because they don’t care for that person’s stance on legalized gambling say. Wouldn’t you infer that the picture burner is saying that person is worthless, and wouldn’t you have a predisposition to simply disregard anything that picture burner was trying to say? I don’t know you however, so I could be off base.
I think you’re missing the point when someone states that they find burning the flag to be disgusting as preface to defending someone’s rights to do so. It’s not (always) an attempt to head off criticism, it’s a statement that for themselves they see the U.S. flag as a symbol of the freedoms we cherish, the compassion we can show and, hopefully the tolerance we can espouse, and when they see it burned they ARE disgusted.
It’s also a qualifier: by saying that they are disgusted with flag burning they acknowledge in advance that they can understand why someone would want to ban flag burning and they can then get to the nitty-gritty of their argument against doing so: if you ban flag-burning you are banning a legitimate part of freedom of speech, and God knows where it will go after that.
On a further note I personally wouldn’t support any Constitutional amendment banning flag-burning. If they passed such a measure, however, I don’t think I would start burning flags; that would likely just polarize the sides even more. I would however lobby, write letters, and debate the issue at every turn.
Why is it that those who want to outlaw flag burning are frequently the ones who howl about “political correctness” and “the ‘right’ to not be offended”? I don’t see liberals trying to amend the Constitution to outlaw anti-PC language.
The hypocrisy is sickening.
Yes. Also sickening is th e hypocracy of those how support the right ot burn flags, but also support campaign finance reform, which restricts the right to promulgatte one’s political POV.
I’ll gladly take this particular assertion to another thread, december. Look up “police power,” “appearance of impropriety,” and “sanctity of the democratic system” first, though. Oh, and read Buckley.
What really set off Osama bin Laden was that the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia has “descerated” the “sacred” Islamic sites. So if you advocate a violent reaction to someone who “descerates” an American flag, then you are displaying the exact same mindset.
That said, I’ll repeat the suggestion I make every time this issue comes up:
The ideal response to someone who burns a flag is to burn him in effigy. A symbolic punishment for a symbolic crime, and no change in the law needed.
Perhaps every local American Legion can form an anti-flag-burning effigy squad equipped to spring into action if an incident is reported in their town. Paste an enlarged image of the perp on a dummy, contact the media, zip down to Ground Zero and flame on!
OK, Gaderene. The thread is up.
Let the battle begin!
Oh, what the hell.
Major premise: That America stands for, among other things, freedom of speech.
Minor premise: That those who burn the American flag are expressing the thought “I am against what America stands for.”
First conclusion: Those who burn the flag are expressing the thought “I should not be allowed to do this”.
Second conclusion: Those who burn the flag are behaving like idiots.
Or how about:
The flag is public property.
So are public parks.
I see some member of Earth First taking a big, smelly crap in a public park as his way of protesting some half-witted thing or other.
I clamp a wristlock on him, and rub his nose in the crap as a way of preventing him from rendering that part of the public park from being used as it was intended.
Have I infringed on his rights?
Or some homeless person is building a campfire on public property. I toss a bucket of water on it, since fires are not allowed on public property. Have I infringed on his rights?
Suppose he is burning a flag. If I dump a bucket of water on it (and on him), have I done anything different from when I toilet-trained Earth First or the HP?
Discuss.
Regards,
Shodan
I can assure you, with utter clarity, that no object that I go into a store and pay for with my money is in any way “public property.” I can further assure you that anyone who tries to treat any such object in that matter will walk away quite unhappy.
Note that you are restricted in how you use your own mail box. It’s illegal to receive deliveries other than US mail in one. (Of course, this law is often violated by various delivery people and contractors.)