I would never burn a flag, but you can be damn sure that I want the legal right to change my mind.
Are you guys talking about protests in general, or specifically protesting the proposed amendment? If you mean burning the flag to protest an amendment that outlaws burning the flag, I agree. But if you mean protests in general, why “asshole,” “idiotic,” and “moron”?
I wouldn’t, because it would be personally meaningless to me. The flag of my nation means nothing to me, so burning it means nothing to me. It would mean no more than burning a shirt or a piece of junk mail.
My understanding is that the proposed amendment only criminalizes burning a flag if it is done to make a political statement. If you burn a flag to dispose of it or if you burn one incidental to setting a schoolhouse on fire, the Constitution will be cool with that.
Are you serious? :dubious:
This is what frightens me. It would be criminalizing a form of free speech. What’s the next step, going to prison for criticizing the government? The US is looking more like Big Brother slowly but surely.
It is my opinion that this amendment chips away at one of the basic tenets of the constitution. I think they have to choose between desecrating the flag or desecrating the constitution. I know which one I think is more important.
As I’ve read in other threads, it is proper to burn an American flag when the object has become so soiled as to be unfit to be flown. Adding this amendment to the Constitution would damage the object that it claims to protect, and I would have no problem seeing flags being burnt as a result.
Yes, I am serious. Why do you find this strange?
This is the sad thing. I’m a fire safety director, and my first thought was that I’d be all in favor of burning a flag in protest of anti-flag burning laws but probably wouldn’t be able to go through with it because after going through fire safety director training, man, you see A LOT of videos of burn victims who started out intending to burn some tiny little thing on a whim. Don’t play with fire, kids! And certainly not in a crowd of people.
Also, while intellectually, I support protest flag burning, emotionally I would be really reluctant to burn a flag once it was actually in my hand. Instead, maybe I will fly a flag desecrated in some other way, adding a little needlepoint to the effect of “Every time you amend the Constitution to limit free speech, you make baby James Madison cry.”
A modern day Betsy Ross, I am.
The idea of the amendment is not to ban flag-burning, but to clearly identify the people in Congress unwilling to ban flag-burning.
Then, people associated with a certain political party can label those people as being “pro-flag-burning” when election season rolls around next year.
Every little bit helps.
I wouldn’t burn a flag, strictly on pragmatic grounds. It’s a really stupid tactic. What do flag burners imagine people thing when they see the flag being burnt?
>Sideshow Bob mode<“Oh, look that person is clearly upset over this issue. I really must rethink my position vis a vis this issue to ensure that I am correct.”>/Sideshow Bob mode<
I think it goes a little more like this:
>Pappy Yoakum mode<“What the dang nat crappy? I’ll show that ping-nabbed what smooly aut smurfit is all about! Where’s my shotgun?” >/Pappy Yoakum mode<
In the huge majority of cases, all flag burners ever do is make people (inside the US) hostile to their cause. Outside the US (when we’re talking about US flags) – whole different story.
For gods sake… don’t burn flags in protest ! It will be the “fuel” for passing the senate hurdle. It will give rightwingers the justification.
We have no plans to burn flags. We plan to write to our sentors, and attend protest rallies. No flag burning involved. The question is,what should we do when the law is passed…
Give that man a kewpie doll! We must at all costs identify those with ‘un-American’ leanings in this country. It’s part of the right’s agenda to revive the McCarthy era.
Oh ok. Still I felt a possibility mentioned of burning in protest before… sure afterwards isn’t as bad. I venture that once the first guy is in jail or punished for it… you can take it until the supreme court.
Still it will be vindication in a way for the “patriotic” justifying the law.
In fact it would be fascist.
I’m going to trot out my standard contribution to the flag burning debate:
If you want to retaliate against someone who has burned an American flag, the best way is to burn the guy in effigy. Anyone can do it, just be sure to call the media. No law enforcement activity is required.
Similarly – why don’t we burn more people in effigy? Why do I only see that happening in foreign countries? I would really love to burn an effigy of GW Bush with a stupid look on his face. I’d wave it around, yell and stamp on it. It would be great!
Unless I just missed something (what was that sound?), lots of folks in this thread plan to burn flags if the amendment passes. Or is my reading comprehension impaired too?
Just an FYI: As mentioned in my post here , the proposed amendment doesn’t specify ANYTHING other than the fact that it will authorize Congress to “prohibit physical desecration” of the flag. That’s it. No conditions, situations, free passes…nuthin’. Just that they can prohibit it (by passing a law against it.)
If the amendment passes (which I REALLY don’t think it will) then the law Congress writes will have to be VERY specific about what constitutes “physical desecration”. But the proposed amendment is not specific AT ALL.
You’d think the other side could call them “anti-free-speech” and in an ideal world (OK, my ideal world) that would be a far more serious allegation than “pro-flag-burning”.
It’s unfortunate though, that not everyone understands that the whole point of “free speech” is to protect the most offensive forms of speech. That may mean Larry Flint’s publications and flag burning. Popular speech never needs protection.
I think if the amendment passes, protestors should take to burning the Constitution instead.
Daniel