That sounds like it makes sense, but my authentic looking copy was bought from a Wash., D.C. gift store, associate with congress. Thus, if I bought more, identifiable on camera, I would be supporting congress.
I’d want to have a brand-spanking-new copy; after all, what would be the point of burning a copy that lacked the flag-burning amendment?
Daniel
I think Some form of Arson charge must be feasible.
Pete Seegar once said to a group of us:
“Sometimes you have to be willing to go to Jail for your cause”.
An excellent sentiment. If you really believe in your cause than go ahead burn the flag and get arrested. I don’t believe flag burning falls into the category of free speech.
I may be a little extreme on this subject, I also feel flying a Nazi swastika should still be considered a seditious act and cause removal of the offending object and potential transfer to Gitmo.
Freedom of speech is suppose to give me the right to say Bush is wrong about things or Clinton was a sleazebag. I don’t see were it allows Flag burning.
I also don’t understand a need for a constitutional amendment.
I think the terms you are looking for are passing the amendment and ratifying it.* Congress passes the amendment, 3/4 of the state legislatures ratify it.
Generally speaking, things don’t need to be “allowed”. The default state is that actions are allowed unless specifically forbidden. You don’t need a specific provision allowing you to drink coke for it to be lawful, for instance. At the contrary, a specific law is needed to ban cocaine.
Right and wrong, too many people quote to Free Speech to protect their right to burn flags. I don’t believe it applies.
I do believe many jurisdictions have arson laws that would allow the arrest of a flag burner. I think they should be enforced and I don’t think the arrested could hide behind “Free Speech”
Free Speech protects free speech not burning. Linguistically speaking we don’t generally accept Burning as a form of speech.
I would think it should cover Sign languages, whistle language and I think it should protect written speech. I should be able to write and say negative things about politicians, lawyers, large apparently evil corporations & even sappy children programming. (Yes I mean hateful writings about Barney). 
But why burning American flags? I don’t think we should be burning any flags.
But I also cannot conceive of wasting our time with an amendment. This seems like just a political maneuver to keep drumming up jingoism.
Can you please pass some of that primo quality weed you are smoking? I too, would enjoy seeing things backward for once.
Perhaps Arson is not the right term. But I’m not allows to take a blanket outside and burn it. Whatever covers this type of action should cover flag burning also.
Sorry, I don’t smoke mother nature either. (Even though I think its stupid to make it illegal).
As I am obviously dumb, please think out your definition logically and use nice small words for me. I just don’t see the connection.
The whole point of Freedom of Speech is that people should be allowed to do things that offend other people. Popular speech never needs protection. I too think burning a flag is rather extreme and offensive but if we ban it, next thing we know they’ll be coming after things I want to say/do that some other people find offensive.
You can burn leaves, with a permit. You can burn wood, or paper, in your yard, when camping, assuming city regs allow. However, should such a general law come into effect, “you cannot burn it in a house, you can not burn it in a mouse, you can not burn it in a chair, you can not burn it anywhere.”
Looks like we’re heading for GD territory here, but I’ll give it a shot. Free Speech is usually interpreted as “symbolic expression”, more broadly than just communication via the spoken or written word. Thus, performance art, burning in effigy, and the wearing of silly hats, to the extent they convey a message, can be construed as “speech”.
Since flag burning is usually associated with political protest of some kind, and is often accompanied by speechifying or placards, the connection of the act of burning the flag to the message being otherwise conveyed is obvious, in the context of the display or presentation.
But you’re missing the point. No-one is concerned about laws against arson, or even about laws against lighting a fire in a public place.
The questions is whether there should be a constitutional amendment that prohibits burning one specific symbol—a flag. Sure, there are places where i’m not allowed to set a piece of paper or a blanket or a pile of wood on fire. But if i’m in a place where i am allowed to set a piece of paper or a blanket or a pile of wood on fire, then i should also be allowed to set a flag on fire.
Right at an American Legion post I can burn and old torn or distress flag. In the privacy of my home I could burn it in my fireplace. As I don’t live in a state where I could burn a blanket at the town hall, I think this should be sufficient to prevent burning the Flag.
Also, I completely agree there should not be a constitutional amendment. I’m against it because it is a frivolous waste time to make such an amendment.
As is obvious from my post, I just don’t believe Flag burning should be protected.
I do think Genghis Bob has presented a rational answer. “Free Speech is usually interpreted as “symbolic expression”, more broadly than just communication via the spoken or written word. Thus, performance art, burning in effigy, and the wearing of silly hats, to the extent they convey a message, can be construed as “speech”.
Since flag burning is usually associated with political protest of some kind, and is often accompanied by speechifying or placards, the connection of the act of burning the flag to the message being otherwise conveyed is obvious, in the context of the display or presentation.”
I respectfully choose to disagree with this interpretation.
If the Constitution is amended and a law is passed, I will burn a flag in protest.
didn’t even refer to free speech. I just stated that something doesn’t need to be “allowed” to lawful. You don’t need some status allowing you to do so for burning a flag being lawful.
Even if your constitution explicitely stated that free speech is not protected, you’d would still have every right to speak freely ( or burn flags, or whatever else) as long as no provision exist specifically forbidding to do so.
IOW, you agree that the laws applying when you burn an old rag should equally apply when you burn a flag?
In this case, I think you’re in complete agreement with people stating in this thread that flag-burning shouldn’t be banned…Nobody stated that flag-burning should enjoy some special protection, that would allow you to burn flags flowing on public buildings, or to burn flags in the middle of a national park where it’s otherwise forbidden to burn anything.
I’m going to let this one to more knowledgeable american posters. But this wasn’t my point.
Why not?
What if other people think otherwise?
Indeed. And from this foreigners point of view, the american people is jingoistic enough without that, and given the IMO unhealthy reverence the american public already seem to have for its flag, there really is no need to legally protect this poor victimized piece of cloth.
Once again a foreign point of view : anti-anti patriotism laws have a bad totalitarian smell to them.
I sure think it smells bad too.
As a legal article… its useless and serves little purpose. Pure politics and distraction. Still Bush and the GOP are so wrapped up in the flag that they must make sure its not burnt.
Right now – no. If this ridiculous thing passes, though, my SO and I will happily burn a flag publicly.
… darn pressed enter to early.
To be fair for exampleI’ve seen similar silly moves in Brazil to protect the flag. Legally speaking we already have certain laws to prevent dessecration of our flag. Some are simple “it shouldn’t touch the ground” which I think are the same in the US. Some of our more conservative minded countrymen wanted to interpret these laws to forbid putting the flag on T-Shirts and especially on Tank Tops (very common here). Even shoes and backpacks. During the World Cup they commonly paint the flag on streets and walls… that would have been a no no. They thought it was over popularizing it or something… all very silly.
I think we need to define what burning the flag means, perhaps this definition should be added to the Constitution, perhaps not.
To me the burning of the flag of the country you are in is a act of rebellion, also know as a act of war (not a police/legal matter). Any citizen is within his rights as a member of the armed forces, or the unorganized militia to defend the land of the USA against this rebellion.
The rebels may then fly their own flag, or choose not to. If they have their own flag they might get Geneva Convention status for a POW if captured, if not then we can ship them to Gitmo (unless they win).