And, a cross is just a piece of wood, but, there are many of us who find it just a despicable to burn a cross.
In my opinion, both these actions should be permitted under Freedom of Speech, but I do think they are horrid actions.
And what is the harm of showing contempt for the flag"? Why is that something that requires criminal punishment? Are we that terrified of dissent? What is meant by “showing contempt” any way? What if I just give the flag my finger? Jailtime? What if I fart through a pair of flag shorts?
That Virginia law is truly sickening. That may be the single most anti-American piece of shit I’ve ever seen. This is a law which seeks to outlaw dissent, to outlaw contemptuous thoughts. For what purpose? What societal damage is done by expressing contempt for a rag with some stripes on it? Should I go to jail for calling it that? I said it with contempt on a public message board. Am I a desperate felon now? Should the feds scour message boards for any such expressions of contempt?
How about virtual flag burning? What if I animate a CG image of a burning flag and put it up on a web page? Should that be illegal too?
That Va. law is the very definition of fascism.
Diogenes:
Take a guess: how many other states have similar laws?
I have some thoughts on the harm that comes from showing disrespect to the flag, but I agree it’s minimal – that is, the Republic is not in danger from someone buring the flag every now and again.
But I’d argue that the harm involved in protecting the flag by law is also minimal. And that there is a great deal of value in saying, through our legislature, that the people of the United States have such pride in the symbol of our country, such reverence for all that the flag embodies, that we protect it from desecration, in the same way that we protect a judge from contempt while he sits on the bench. The man under the robe may be a wife-beater, an alcoholic, a secret fan of the Osmonds - we don’t know. But we are required to show proper respect for his office while he exercises it. So, too, should we show proper respect for the “office” that the flag symbolizes.
So, what’s your guess - how many other states besides Virginia have similar anti-flag desecration laws?
- Rick
You can’t legislate “pride.”
There is a difference between the necessity for respect and appropriate behavior during the judicial process and respect for a piece of cloth.
I’m sure there are far too many states with similar garbage on their books…maybe all of them. That doesn’t make it right, though.
I propose the following amendment to the Constitution:
The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the advocacy of any Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I hope that if Congress and the states were to enact such laws, people would refrain (under threat of being sent to jail) from publicly advocating the passage of a constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the U.S. flag. I realize that if such laws were passed some people might still make such statements, but as time passed and such people were prosecuted, convicted, and received state or federal criminal records (and were possibly imprisoned) there should be far fewer such public statements.
The damage to our Constitutional ideals and our American way of life by people who call for a “flag desecration amendment” may be minimal compared to that done by terrorists or violent criminals, but my proposed amendment places only minimal limits on public discourse (you could still call people who desecrate American flags “long-haired Commie pinko un-American hippies”), and I think it’s important that we, as a nation, reaffirm our commitment to such fundamental American values as freedom of speech, by placing limits on freedom of speech.
Well, MeBuckner, I’d be against that amendment, and I’d argue vociferously that it is unwise. But if both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states passed it, I’d certainly respect it as the law of the land, and, frankly, work hard to repeal it at the same time.
But should the Buckner amendment pass, it would suggest that the country was strongly in favor of keeping the right to desecrate the flag alive, so much so that it was willing to prohibit even discussion of it. That’s an unlikely set of events.
On the other hand, the actual flag amendment this thread is discussing has passed the House before, and the sentiment seems to be that, should it pass the Senate, it’s likely that three-fourths of the states would approve it.
So I’d say my amendment is much closer to being part of the Constitution than yours. 
- Rick
So – who gets to decide on what’s “right”?
You?
Me? I think it should be me, and not you. I trust me more.
You seem to think it should be you, and not me.
How can we resolve this conflict? What sort of system can we create to decide who gets to make these decisions?
I have an idea. It involves two national houses of delegates, one elected by population within states; the other elected two to each state. It also involves individual state legislative houses elected to manage state laws, and … well, you get the idea.
How about we let the Supreme Court decide it…oh wait, they already did.
Have you considered the possibility that the legislators are not infallible and are capable of making a decision which would not be in the best interests of the people or in the spirit of the Constitution?
Sure, they decided it already - based on the existing law. And we’ll let them decide it again, based on the new law. That’s what the system is – unless you’re proposing we cede all legislative power to the justices, and do away with Congress and state legislatures?
I’m not aware of any legislative authority in the country that’s infalliable.
But my point is that THIS is the system we live under. This is how laws are made, this is how the Constitution is amended. The First Amendment, which provides protection for flag-burners, came into being after Congress passed it and three-fourths of the states ratified it - and apparently you’re fine with that; you’re exalting it as the “spirit of the Constitution”. But it WASN’T the spirit of the Constitution before it passed, was it?
Now the same process is being used to amend the Constitution, and you’re not fine with that. But future generations will, hopefully, look at the twenty-eighth amendment and talk about how Congress’ ability to prohibit flag-burning is in the spirit of the Constitution… because, then, it will be.
Assuming that it passes, of course. If it does not, then you’re right and I’m wrong.
- Rick
This amendment elevates a symbol of freedom above freedom itself.
See, it’s arguments like this that make me worry that they might actually pass the damn amendment this time. the last two times it went through the Senate, it only failed by 3 and 4 votes respectively, which frankly boggles the mind; these days, with jingoism and paranoia experiencing something of a Renaissance, jingoism may very well carry the day. I hope I’m wrong.
The notion that flag desecration is somehow not “pure speech” is a load of crap; otherwise, why the hell would anyone need to amend the Constitution to prohibit it? People don’t demand a Constitutional amendment to prohibit burning oily rags or pictures of Donny Osmond. *The message that the act sends is the whole point. *
As far as protecting the symbolic value of the flag, what exactly do you think that symbolic value is, anyway? If you think it only expresses “nationhood and national unity,” you’re going to need a lot more amendments. After all, you also have to protect desecration of pictures of the Bald Eagle, Uncle Sam, and those “fit-the-states-together” geography puzzles, just to name a few.
For me, the flag stands (among other things) for liberty and the freedom to express my opinions openly, even to criticize the government in the strongest possible terms should I so choose. Prohibiting the destruction of state symbols might be appropriate for a totalitarian regime, but not for the United States of America. Citizens should be encouraged to respect the flag out of love for the ideas it represents, not because they are compelled to by law. Making it constitutional to punish people for expressing political opinions would be a terrible legacy for future generations. If this amendment passes, I think it will signify that Americans have lost their understanding of, or interest in, the value of protecting unpopular or offensive political expression. The flag would then be a symbol not of freedom, but of hypocrisy. “Land of the Free,” indeed.
On preview, I see Blalron managed to sum all that up in one sentence. I doff my hat to you.
Well, Terrifel, I think we’ll simply have to agree to disagree.
See you at the Constitutional amendment ceremony.
- Rick
Cooler heads may yet prevail.
I think banning flag burning is stupid, needless, and smacks of Orwellian thought control. After all, how far is it from ‘no disrespecting the flag’ to ‘no disrespecting the country’ to ‘no disrespecting the government.’
(Though, I have no personal desire to burn flags, so could live without the right, if everyone else insists. Anyway, I’m in the UK where as far as I know you can wipe your arse on any flag and be pleased it’s doing something useful.)
However, I tried to think of an analogous case. How about public nudity? It similarly harms no-one, but offends a lot of people, and people see an argument for banning that. (OK, so some people think it’s ok, but you see my point)
Bricker,
I haven’t always agreed with you but I’ve always thought you were reasonable and thoughtful. I also respect, and have deferred to, your knowledge as a lawyer. Your support for this amendement, though, really surprises me. I wonder if you’ve let your personal revulsion at the act cloud your judgement here. It’s one thing to argue (correctly) that congress has the right to pass this and that the states have the right to ratify it. It’s another to actually offer support for what is clearly nothing more than a grandstanding political stunt which not only does nothing to protect or enhance the public good but actually takes away from it. SCOTUS has said that flag desecration is speech. Therefore this amendment will, for the first time, abridge the first amendment, which I would argue is the heart and soul of the US Constitution and American ideology. If we can abridge it once, we can abridge it again. We can outlaw satanism. I’m sure that would get plenty of poular and political support as well. I’m amazed that you can’t see (or won’t acknowledge) how utterly inappropriate this proposed amendment is. I beg you to reevaluate your position on this. You’re smarter than this, I know you are.
Just how many fewer incidents can there be? When was the last time a flag burning happened in your area?
And once all of us hot heads have been arrested for our demonstrations and are sporting criminal records and toting the line, do you think that there will be greater respect for the flag or less?
Where and when, exactly, has this terrible avalanche of public flag burnings become a crisis worthy of a Constitutional amendment? This is nothing more than legislative masturbation, an empty and banal display of public patriotism meant to embarass the political enemies of the Forces of Darkness. You’ll see a lot more of it in the next year, I warrant…cooked up opportunities to make Democrats pledge allegiance while standing on thier heads, or refuse and prove thier craven treason.
I realize you are probably done with this discussion Bricker but I had some thoughts about your argument.
Bricker doesn’t this lead to the creation of a “venerated” symbol? The creation of venerated symbols necessarily restricts some speech by those who seek to demonstrate their discontempt and disgust for everything the symbol represents by desecrating it.
Showing proper “respect” for the flag is nothing more than state censorship by precluding those who want to disrespect the flag while permitting those who desire to show their respect and love for the flag to do so and express this message by waving the flag or placing it in public view. The former message is prohibited while the latter is permitted and this is violates the First Amendment as nothing more than view point discrimination.
Now I know you think flag burning is not pure speech and I agree with you but I think flag burning is tantamount to “pure speech”. Symbolic messages can at times be tantamount to “pure speech” see Abe Fortas’ opinion in Tinker vs. Des Moines where he wrote the wearing of arm bands to protest the war is similar to “pure speech”. I think flag burning, although symbolic, is just as similar to pure speech as the wearing of arm bands.