I was reading an article on strange state laws and it had this one from West Virgina.
§61-1-6. Display of red or black flag unlawful.
It shall be unlawful for any person to have in his possession or to display any red or black flag, or to display any other flag, emblem, device or sign of any nature whatever, indicating sympathy with or support of ideals, institutions or forms of government, hostile, inimical or antagonistic to the form or spirit of the constitution, laws, ideals and institutions of this state or of the United States.
Why would this law be on the books. What is wrong with having a red or black flag?
I don’t think “terrorism” has anything to do with it. As you point out, anarchists were generally associated (at least in the popular imagination) with random political violence, while communists were not, but the law targets both. Furthermore the wording of the law makes it clear that what is problematic is not violence or crime, but simply “support” (which could be lawful, peaceful support) for different “ideals, institutions or forms of government”.
The online version doesn’t, sadly. That might indicate whether it was directed at marauding Confederate or ex-Confederate freebooters, or at anarchists, whose association with the black flag is rather later.
It’s worth noting that the West Virginia Legislature site, to which Duckster provides a link, indicates that WV has just passed legislation to delete this particular provision from the WV Code. So it seems that we can now flourish our black and red flags in West Virginia without fear of oppression by the state.
Wow. I wonder if WV has ever arrested someone under that law. I don’t see how it could withstand a challenge.
I’m assuming that this is trying to say that this law can be applied in the future, but could it really be used to say it’s illegal to speak out against a future enemies of the state?
Typically members of alternative social movements didn’t get a lot of respect in the courts – or public opinion. It’s naive to think that the U.S. has always (ever?) practiced the tolerance for alternative views that it preaches. I don’t know how it could withstand a challenge, either, but I’m sure it did. Communists were regularly persecuted and blacklisted throughout the middle half of the 20th century – think of the McCarthy hearings, or look up the Weavers sometime. Or go watch Modern Times, where Charlie Chaplin’s character gets sent to jail for waving a red flag.
The best part is that that West Virginia law is itself inimical to the institutions of the Constitution of the United States. I wonder if you could use that law as justification to arrest the legislators who passed it?
First, I’d bet serious amounts that the law wasn’t aimed at Confederate sympathisers (wouldn’t they just fly, well, the Confederate flag?), but at anarchists. Those lawyers could use some historical perspective themselves, particularly around the struggle to unionize coal mines.
Second, I wonder if they can possibly justify characterizing socialism (or most well-thought-out versions of anarchism) as ‘anti-democratic’.
Not so much urban legend as local usage. The red scarves thing seems to have occurred in West Virginia, and thus may be relevant to the OP, but in general usage redneck is a reference to poor white farmers of North European descent who tended not to tan notwithstanding extended exposure to the Sun. See Word and Phrase Origins, Robert Hendrickson (4th ed. 2008).
