You don’t favor a constitutional amendment for what reason? Certainly not because you value of freedom of speech. Is it simply because you think it’s unnecessary and the legislature can do it now?
It’s not a strawman. You specifically state that you favor banning this form of political expression. That’s anti-free speech.
In general, no. In your case I’m willing to make an exception.
I’m against any flag burning amendment but that’s because I support our rights not because I support flag burning. Spitting on the monument would be like spitting on a grave and I wouldn’t be at all sympathetic if someone got a good ass whipping for doing it.
Marc
My objection to flag burning as protest is that as speech it is incoherent*, and far more likely to alienate than to influence otherwise - thus burning the American flag works far better for Iranians than it ever could for Americans. (It’s just so freaking juvenile) Burning all the American flags would not affect my feelings for my country one iota. Piss me off something fierce perhaps.
Happy Again has a damn good point. There are legions of people who abuse the flag under the pretense of a show of support and patriotism. Ripped flags, faded yellow, off-yellow, and off-blue banners, flags frayed all to hell. It pisses me off to see a huge American flag with 13 separate stripe pennants because it’s owner sure as shit can’t be bothered to either take care of it or replace it. (And on a side note, let’s try and keep that “these colors don’t run” placards a little fresher, mm-kay, just to keep the irony down). But disprespect of the flag by the patriotic, (shredded and faded) flag waving public is perfectly okay. It’s only those mean communist socialist traitor terrorist loving librul hippies who are not to be allowed to abuse the flag.
Let’s face it, to properly fetishize the flag we can’t stop at banning flag burning - people wishing to express their incoherent rage shouldn’t be allowed to dip the flag in excreta, or drag it through the mud, or make toilet paper out of it. Just embed the whole fucking “rules for the care and handling of an American Flag” in the Constitution already. And no fucking whining about how hard “The Star Spangled Banner” is to sing, either, yah whiners.
I also feel that a constitutional amendment banning flag burning just lowers the bar so freaking much.
*Okay, I get it - you like fire a lot and maybe America not quite so much?
Perhaps I should clarify my position, just so everyone knows exactly where I stand.
In the past, the flag was generally more well respected (yes, that meant fewer tattered flags on cars) and anti-desecration laws were on the books at the local and state level. If someone were to actually desecrate a flag, though, he probably wouldn’t be prosecuted. He’d be cited by a cop, or warned to leave a protest so it wouldn’t get out of hand, or something like that. Most prosecutors wouldn’t deal long with such a case if it got that far - their discretion would usually handle it as a small matter indeed.
Under this system, respect for the flag was high, offenses were few. It is the regime I favor. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever get back there again, as a general coarsening of manners and a boneheaded Supreme Court decision have made it impossible.
Next, we have today, where flag burning is more frequent. I’ve seen an incident or two at inauguration protests and other protests in DC, and I know there are far more incidents than there used to be. How many, though, we don’t know since this isn’t a crime in and of itself.
In general, though, Americans still love and respect the flag. And I’d be happy to see this current state of affairs continue, since we can’t get back to the old days, and I think any change would make things worse.
If a flag amendment were to pass, I think people would burn flags out of spite, just to piss off their fellow countrymen and make an, in my opinion, mistaken political point. Folks on this board have said as much, and I believe them. And seeing as I want to keep flag burnings to a minimum, I wouldn’t favor an amendment.
That doesn’t mean I like to see flag burning legal, or that I think the Supreme Court was correct in their reasoning. I think their reasoning was muddled in the extreme, as they banned some conduct, as I pointed out, but left some stand.
I’d like to see someone answer these points with something more substantial than it’s speech, and that’s that. Because that’s really all I’m getting from most of these arguments, and it just doesn’t hold water with me.
Just to clarify my position MM, I think folks who burn the flag are friggen idiots and that it’s a stupid message to send. That said, I think the same about folks who voted for David Duke.
Just because I think people are idiots doesn’t mean I should make their actions illegal.
True.
No they would not.
Pitting in 3…2…1…
One small point in your favor
Let me get this straight? It is not just the jobs of people who post to put down good arguments, and reasons why you are incorrect, but also good arguments designed to convince someone who seems incapable of seeing the outher side of the issue? :dubious:
Well, actually, that is the way it works in the real world, but this is not the real world, and I, at least, am not a politician trying to get you to vote for me.
Perhaps you’d like to respond to my questions as to why you don’t consider it speech, and then I could get to whatever points you want. While you’re at it, you could also answer whether campaign contributions are also not speech, but conduct like you see flag burning.
That’s fine. It’s a respectable viewpoint. I just don’t happen to agree with it.
On matters like this, I take a traditionalist stance most of the time, especially if said traditions don’t prove too injurious to personal liberty. This is one of those times.
Response to Nurse Carmen, late going through.
It is not speech because it is inarticulate. What does a burning flag say to us? What does it write?
Now, campaign contributions are another story. Restrictions on them necessarily restrict print, radio and television advertisement, and these communications are explicitly covered by First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
It most likely says that a person is unhappy with the government of this country. Admittedly vague.
Why? If I give money to the Republican party all I’m saying is that I want the Republican party to have resources to help them win elections. I guess you could say I’m saying that I am happy with the Republican party. Just as vague as flag burning.
It’s quite easy to split out vague monetary contributions from explicit speech in the form of advertisements.
Unless you come up with a more convincing argument, I think you need to either consider flag burning to be speech, or you need to change your stance on monetary contributions to political parties. Both are equally vague, and neither are verbal nor explicit.
What it says to me is that the country is no longer worthy of the banner that so many revere, and the nation is so out of step with the ideals that the flag represents that the flag might as well be burned since it no longer really stands for anything. Some might say we are there now, after launching an immoral war and conducting torture and other human rights abuses.
That requires a bit of interpretation on your part, doesn’t it? That message isn’t explicit in the act of burning.
How would you feel if anti-gun nuts took control and banned 21 gun salutes? Would you consider that speech?
How about standing and putting your hand over your heart when the flag is raised? Is that speech?
How about bowing your head before a meal? Clapping for a touchdown? Fake mooning the Packer fans in the end zone?
All of these are non-verbal, yet convey a message. Just because your opinion of the non-verbal communication holds it as muddled or confused, doesn’t mean that folks shouldn’t be allowed to do it.
A message needn’t be expicit to be valid. Consider abstract art and poetry that you really have to work to decipher the point. If a hundred people burn flags, they might have 100 slightly different reasons but the message is going to be generally that things are not what they ought to be.
I’d appreciate a response to this, Mr. Moto. It’s a question you’ve not answered, and I really don’t see how there’s more than one legitimate answer to the question.
Meanwhile, here’s another question for you: does your copy of the Bill of Rights say,
That’s not what mine says. My copy makes no judgments about whether the speech is articulate or inarticulate, eloquent or stupid, well-reasoned or foolish.
Daniel
This is more of a Second Amendment issue than a First Amendment one.
Nope, conduct.
Let’s be clear about things here. Speech is when you open up your mouth and say something. Conduct is when you do something. And while conduct may be constitutionally protected, actually calling it speech just confuses the issue.
In this case, it is conduct, clearly. I believe it is conduct that falls under First Amendment protections for freedom of belief.
Certainly. But clearly we draw the line somewhere, don’t we? On one side we happily permit flag salutes, on the other we ban monument spitting and cross burning. Where does that line get drawn, and why is flag burning magically on one side of it?
Certainly not. And I think a community that faces a problem in this area could profitably ban public burning and just arrest the miscreants, and have no constitutional issues to speak of.
It would conflict with the SC’s definition of speech, which I consider wrongly broad.
Again, this is merely a dispute over how far to take the First Amendment, and I’m content, at this point, to leave well enough alone.
I refuse to go along with a know standard term, because I don’t feel like it.
I feel “speech” should be defined in one way only. Since I can not prove it, and since the other side does a better job presenting why I am- No, I can’t say it. I am taking my ball, and going home!
A better way to put it would be translated into Cartmanian, but I do not know that language.
Huh. So mutes, who use ASL, receive no constitutional protection if they sign something political? THey may be thrown in jail without violating the first amendment?
If I scrawl “Protect the first amendment” on a piece of posterboard and march in protest of this proposed amendment, you’d say the police may arrest me without violating my first amendment rights, since that posterboard wasn’t speech?
During WWII (and I mean no Godwinization, but it’s the only example I can think of along these lines), Nazi resisters used to hum Beethoven’s famous “Dee Dee Dee DUM!” to keep one another’s spirits up: these four notes are also Morse code for V, for Victory. Humming, you’d say, receives no first amendment protection?
I think that’s all ridiculous. The framers of the constitution almost certainly wanted to protect freedom of expression, through various means. The supreme court has always (to my knowledge) interpreted freedom of speech as extending beyond mere vocal utterances.
You suggest that a community could just ban all public burning and get around the Supreme Court that way. I think you should look at the Florida community that tried to ban all animal slaughtering within its town limits, as a way to prevent Santeria animal sacrifice. If I recall correctly, the Supreme Court knocked that law down, because although the ordinance was superficially religion-neutral, its intent was to restrict religion, and that’s not kosher. Similarly, if a burning ordinance was passed with superficially speech-neutral language but whose clear intent was to prevent flag-burning, that would not be kosher. Only if the ordinance serves a purpose beyond restricting expression would it be okay (e.g., if there were legitimate public safety concerns arising from the act of burning).
Finally I think you should review the Supreme Court decision regarding cross-burning. It’s only Constitutional to forbid such activities when the intent is illegal racial intimidation. Illegal intimidation is already (guess!) illegal, so this was no new restriction on Free Speech. Similarly, if some lunatic burns a flag with the intent of communicating an illegal threat, it would not be constitutionally protected.
However, as others have already said, most flagburners are not trying to communicate that threat, so their expression is not something that’s restrictable. Any restriction on the medium of their expression must be content-neutral both in letter and in spirit, or it is not constitutional.
Daniel