Not to mention graves in Normandy.
I’m not sure it does. IIRC, the do-not-spit-on-the-sidewalks laws were enacted out of concern for the spread of disease. If this is so, then there is compelling interests in limiting this form of expression.
OK I can agree with your sentimnts, but you have to concede that this is not how the real world works. Some stones do mean something to some people. There are varying degrees of value placed on different stones that are public. Do you think the same value is placed on the 12th step on the west side of the Capitol as on JFKs grave in Arlington or on a flagstone paver at the intersection of Wisconsin and M Street?
Americans DO place value on some things that legally may have the same protection. So again, while I agree with your premise, I think this is illustrative of how the left os losing the fight for the hearts and minds of America.
On the contrary: let me repeat the sentence that I think you’re missing:
I don’t see anything in your post that contradicts this sentence. Specifically, my feelings about the content of the “speech” of spitting on the Vietnam Memorial is wildly different from my feelings about the content of the “speech” of spitting on “the 12th step on the west side of the Capitol,” and I cheerfully acknowledge that my feelings about this content is shared by most folks. That does not change my take on the legality of the acts.
If this is losing the fight for the hearts and minds of Americans, that’s either because the opposition is misrepresenting the position (confusing feelings about the content with judgments of the legality), or because Americans do not value freedom of speech. I dearly hope it’s the former.
Nonetheless, I will not desecrate liberty in order to win an election.
Daniel
For those interested, these laws should pertain:
DC Code 22-3311. Disorderly conduct in public buildings or grounds; injury to or destruction of United States property.
Any person guilty of disorderly and unlawful conduct in or about the public buildings and public grounds belonging to the United States within the District of Columbia, or who shall wilfully injure the buildings or shrubs, or shall pull down, impair, or otherwise injure any fence, wall, or other inclosure, or shall injure any sink, culvert, pipe, hydrant, cistern, lamp, or bridge, or shall remove any stone, gravel, sand, or other property of the United States, or any other part of the public grounds or lots belonging to the United States in the District of Columbia, shall be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.
22-3312.01. Defacing public or private property.
It shall be unlawful for any person or persons willfully and wantonly to disfigure, cut, chip, or cover, rub with, or otherwise place filth or excrement of any kind; to write, mark, or print obscene or indecent figures representing obscene or objects upon; to write, mark, draw, or paint, without the consent of the owner or proprietor thereof, or, in the case of public property, of the person having charge, custody, or control thereof, any word, sign, or figure upon:
(1) Any property, public or private, building, statue, monument, office, public passenger vehicle, mass transit equipment or facility, dwelling or structure of any kind including those in the course of erection; or
(2) The doors, windows, steps, railing, fencing, balconies, balustrades, stairs, porches, halls, walls, sides of any enclosure thereof, or any movable property.
As I stated earlier, I wouldn’t do it.
Again I think we agree more than disagree on the subject. I guess what I am saying is that the dispassionate view you take that all public stones are equal just doesn’t play well. You are probably correct in your stance, but at your own peril.
You’re saying that my view that all public stones are legally equal doesn’t play well? I think you’re right, and I think you’re right that it’s at my own peril. However, for me to abandon the position would be to the peril of freedom (not to get all bombastic or anything…) and it’s more important for me to champion what’s right than to win doing what’s wrong.
Daniel
Dumping your long-held principles in the interests of being more likely to win an election is something the Democrats are loath to do. It doesn’t appear that the modern Republican party as a whole has a problem with it, though.
Not to mention that the principles in question are ones that this country was founded on, not some relativist postmodern proposition. I’d have to wonder which side of this debate is more akin to the Founding Fathers and whether that would have any impact whatsoever on the banners…
They are legally equal. You can’t spit on the subway (Metro is absolutely deaconian on this point), can’t spit on the monument, can’t spit on the stairs, can’t spit on the sidewalk. You just can’t legally spit anywhere except in properly approved spitting facilities.
Spitoons used to be common in Washington offices, hotels and lobbies, but they’ve gone right out of style. You might just want to hork one into the john instead, like most folks do.
draconian, sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that Metro was acting like a lower church official.
[George Carlin]
Spitting on the sidewalk is a fifty dollar fine.
Vomiting is free.
You’d think, the bigger the mess, the bigger the fine. But no.
[/Carlin]
Disregarding the sanitary and property-damage questions, the* symbolic* content of the two actions are quite different. To spit upon the vietnam memorial is to disrespect the dead soldiers. Whatever one’s opinion of the Vietnam war, this sucks. To burn a flag is to say that the actions of one’s government are so wrong that a nation that allows such a thing is unworthy of allegiance. In an extreme case, (and where this line is drawn is debatable), burning a flag is the least you can do.
I personally would not spit on the Vietnam Memorial. I’ve never agreed with the war, but I will not disrespect our soldiers who died there needlessly. I’d never burn the flag, either. I respect it as a symbol of my country. I do not revere the flag, and I don’t believe it’s possible to desecrate the US flag; it’s not holy or sacred. (Some other nations’ flags with religious symbols on them may well be holy, but Old Glory is not.)
Since the SCOTUS ruled that flag-burning is protected speech, how many have been burned in the US? I’d bet fewer than 5. Almost all the burnings of US flags have been outside the US. The flag does not need protection. Using a constitutional amendment or federal law to ban an extremely rare form of protest is like removing dust with a chainsaw.
Brandeis said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The best way to expose the stupidity of an opinion is to let it be heard.
Right, so there it is. Just as laws already exist concerning spitting on or otherwise defacing a public area or monument, laws no doubt already exist concerning the burning of objects, such as a flag, if such poses a risk to property or persons, or such is not the property of the person oing the burning.
I’m against the idea spitting on the Viet Nam Memorial, whether as an act of protest or for any other reason, but I’m especially against stupid, unnecessary feel-good legislation that seeks to criminalize mild and rarely-used forms of protest simply because one group or another happens to be offended by it, especially if the acts involved are already covered by existing legislation.
Well, considering they stand for completely different things, this is kind of apples and oranges, wouldn’t you say?
The flag represents our country. That’s it. Yes, we can also attach ideals to what our COUNTRY stands for, but in the end, the flag is just about America. If you want to burn the flag, you’re basically saying, “I disagree with this country, here’s why-”
The Vietnam memorial, however, is to HONOR those who died in the war. It represents these people. Spitting on it is disrespectful, it’s not speech.
Emphasis [giggle] mine.
True. Let’s change the question to whether someone could stand at the memorial and quietly say, “I’m glad you American pigs died, you baby murderers! Every one of you imperialist dogs got what you deserved.”
In such a case, I think we’d all agree that the speaker was:
a) Behaving in an extremely offensive fashion; and
b) Behaving in a manner that is probably Constitutionally protected.
I put the weasel word “probably” in there because I believe there are limitations on “fighting words,” and I suspect that such an offensive statement might run into trouble in that regard.
Were it up to me, I would allow such a statement, as incredibly inappropriate as it may be, because it’s a political statement, and protecting political statements is really the very core of protected speech.
Daniel
This is the essential question, and you just dismissed it, Guin.
Spitting is not speech, and is not protected even if it is expressive. That’s my position, and is one you seem to agree with. Yet you take the view that flag burning, which similarly is not speech, is expressive and deserves protection.
This doesn’t hold up, in my view.
And the offensiveness of the act cannot be the measure, since we all agree that flag burning is pretty offensive. Indeed, this offensiveness is the appeal to those who would do it.
I said in a previous thread that the Supreme Court was wrong to hold that flag burning enjoyed First Amendment protection. I stand by this. If they had not so ruled, flag burning would be illegal by the same local statutes that makes spitting on monuments illegal in most places, and would be handled easily by cops and prosecutors and judges exercising appropriate discretion.
That doesn’t mean I want an amendment now, just that the status quo ante was to be preferred.
Heck, let’s ride this slippery slope a little. If it becomes illegal to deface a flag, how about a virtual flag, i.e. having a jpeg image of a flag on a website, with all sorts of defacements on it, or an animated gif showing such a flag being burned?
It may come to a point where it’s risky to even say “flag” because of the potential for virtual “destruction” of the word (with strikeouts, for example). So, taking as example our orthodox members who write “G_d” as a matter of practice, let me be the first to suggest the proper patriotic American approach should henceforth be to refer to the primary symbol of the United States as a “f_ag”.
So there.
I remember maybe 10 or so years ago when this debate reared its head before. The Doonesbury cartoon touched on in the Sunday paper. Most of it I forget, but I remember him challenging those who say there should be an amendment to properly dispose of the comic. The last pane of the comic was simply an American flag.
Brilliant.
In the grand scheme of things, isn’t this a non-issue?