Flag Burning

[ThomasPaine]

<blockquote><b>Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression</b>

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; <i><b>or abridging the freedom of speech</i></b>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

an abhorent act. Why burn the flag when you can get on your soapbox and cast vile verbal attacks on any number of things American. It's the act of burning the flag from which the protester/ middle eastern asshole/ Anti-American foreign and domestic/ gets their jollies. But is this "act" speech? I, for one, think not. Seriously doubt this will ever get passed or pass enough states for ratification, however I'm all for it. Why not consider our flag what the burners of it consider it as; The Symbol of The United States. But no alot of lefties won't agree. After all if you don't handle the Koran with kid gloves you're a "torturer". But if you burn the symbol of our country you're just "expressing yourself". If you did it in front of me the baseball bat treatment would be appropo.

 

[Gem]

Bully,

Yes, thankyou. You have proven my point completely and shown that you were wrong above. It was very big of you, and I'm impressed you can admit mistakes.

We have laws against wearing the American Flag or using it for decorating purposes. AN ACTUAL FLAG. American flags are made in a specific way with specific guidelines and specifications...its how you know you have an actual American flag and need to take care of it rather than a throw blanket that LOOKS like a flag, a pair of boxershorts that LOOKS like a flag, a string bikini that LOOKS like a flag, etc.

You are legally permitted to wear, display, etc. items made of fabrin that LOOKS like the American flag...therefore Kid Rock, who claimed that his American flag poncho at the SuperBowl a few years ago was not an actual flag, was well within his legal rights.

----------------------

As to the actual debate, the people who have expressed belief that the amendment shouldn't pass have almost all stated clearly that they find the practice of burning a flag wrong. I think its important to keep that in mind as the debate progresses...none of us is out burning a flag or advocating others do so, we simply feel that the flag, having such a deep, vital message as to who we are as a nation, what we believe and value as a nation LOSES some of that when the freedoms we claim to value are curtailed unneccessarily.

First and foremost, while you may not agree that freedom of expression SHOULD be considered part of freedom of speech, bottom line is, our nation has been interpreting the constitution that way for quite some time. People are allowed to express their beliefs in all sorts of inane ways, welcome to the U.S.A. If your beef is with this, then we need to start a whole new thread on Constitutional Law and discuss the crazy, misguided ways our nation has gotten to some of its most important laws. (Having sat in on a Constitutional Law class I can say that the road to abortion-on-demand is a fascinating, maddening one filled with judge "interpretations" that most people wouldn't agree with). However, I don't think anyone is more interested in that, at this point in time, then they are with the question: Should a person be permitted to burn an American flag?

Should we look at other symbols and how they are treated for guidance? People are allowed to put crosses in buckets of urine. People are horribly offended, but in America, most of us do not want laws protecting people from being offended. The offended party simply refuses to purchase or support the disgusting artist's work. In other nations, for instance some Muslim ones, desecration of their holy symbols and books leads to murder and violence...we look to them and say...isn't it amazing that in this nation we do not kill people for expressing their differing beliefs.

The American flag is quite similar for those of us who are against this amendment. It is a symbol. A wonderful symbol of all the good that America stands for. Freedom. Liberty. A belief that a man should be able to express his disapproval for what the government of his nation is doing without being persecuted by that government for it.

If we lose that...if we say that you can not show your disapproval for something this nation has done/is doing by burning a flag, then we have removed the right exercise your right to free speech in this way.

Now, some will point to the example of calling "fire!" in a crowded theater...but the analogy does not hold. It is illegal to do that because people could be hurt and killed by falsely saying there is a need to get out of the enclosed space as quickly as possible. Just as inciting a riot is illegal, we have laws regarding doing things that physically harm someone.

We, as a nation, have tried to avoid laws that deal with "offending" people. We are failing at this, campus speech codes become more and more un-Constitutional as they deem more and more topics "illegal" to discuss, and people are fiddling with the notion of "hate-speech" everyday.

If we make burning the flag illegal...we have taken one step closer to saying, "Its illegal to criticize the President during war time." Or a little further down the path, "Its illegal to criticize the President about matters of national security," or keep slipping down the slope, "It's illegal to criticize the President or the nation in anyway."

Is it a long way off? Probably? Might it never happen at all? Perhaps. But for now, I will continue to fight for people to express their opinions even the ridiculous, revolting ones - like most of Howard Dean's. Why?

Because right now...the item on the chopping block is one that I find very easy to say, "That should be illegal! You shouldn't be able to burn an American flag!" But next might come something a little closer to my heart...and then...something even closer. And when they finally came for me, there was no one left to say anything. We have to protect ALL the rights...even when they are expressed in disgusting ways.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Bully,

Yes, thankyou. You have proven my point completely and shown that you were wrong above. It was very big of you, and I'm impressed you can admit mistakes.

We have laws against wearing the American Flag or using it for decorating purposes. AN ACTUAL FLAG. American flags are made in a specific way with specific guidelines and specifications...its how you know you have an actual American flag and need to take care of it rather than a throw blanket that LOOKS like a flag, a pair of boxershorts that LOOKS like a flag, a string bikini that LOOKS like a flag, etc.

You are legally permitted to wear, display, etc. items made of fabrin that LOOKS like the American flag...therefore Kid Rock, who claimed that his American flag poncho at the SuperBowl a few years ago was not an actual flag, was well within his legal rights.

----------------------

As to the actual debate, the people who have expressed belief that the amendment shouldn't pass have almost all stated clearly that they find the practice of burning a flag wrong. I think its important to keep that in mind as the debate progresses...none of us is out burning a flag or advocating others do so, we simply feel that the flag, having such a deep, vital message as to who we are as a nation, what we believe and value as a nation LOSES some of that when the freedoms we claim to value are curtailed unneccessarily.

First and foremost, while you may not agree that freedom of expression SHOULD be considered part of freedom of speech, bottom line is, our nation has been interpreting the constitution that way for quite some time. People are allowed to express their beliefs in all sorts of inane ways, welcome to the U.S.A. If your beef is with this, then we need to start a whole new thread on Constitutional Law and discuss the crazy, misguided ways our nation has gotten to some of its most important laws. (Having sat in on a Constitutional Law class I can say that the road to abortion-on-demand is a fascinating, maddening one filled with judge "interpretations" that most people wouldn't agree with). However, I don't think anyone is more interested in that, at this point in time, then they are with the question: Should a person be permitted to burn an American flag?

Should we look at other symbols and how they are treated for guidance? People are allowed to put crosses in buckets of urine. People are horribly offended, but in America, most of us do not want laws protecting people from being offended. The offended party simply refuses to purchase or support the disgusting artist's work. In other nations, for instance some Muslim ones, desecration of their holy symbols and books leads to murder and violence...we look to them and say...isn't it amazing that in this nation we do not kill people for expressing their differing beliefs.

The American flag is quite similar for those of us who are against this amendment. It is a symbol. A wonderful symbol of all the good that America stands for. Freedom. Liberty. A belief that a man should be able to express his disapproval for what the government of his nation is doing without being persecuted by that government for it.

If we lose that...if we say that you can not show your disapproval for something this nation has done/is doing by burning a flag, then we have removed the right exercise your right to free speech in this way.

Now, some will point to the example of calling "fire!" in a crowded theater...but the analogy does not hold. It is illegal to do that because people could be hurt and killed by falsely saying there is a need to get out of the enclosed space as quickly as possible. Just as inciting a riot is illegal, we have laws regarding doing things that physically harm someone.

We, as a nation, have tried to avoid laws that deal with "offending" people. We are failing at this, campus speech codes become more and more un-Constitutional as they deem more and more topics "illegal" to discuss, and people are fiddling with the notion of "hate-speech" everyday.

If we make burning the flag illegal...we have taken one step closer to saying, "Its illegal to criticize the President during war time." Or a little further down the path, "Its illegal to criticize the President about matters of national security," or keep slipping down the slope, "It's illegal to criticize the President or the nation in anyway."

Is it a long way off? Probably? Might it never happen at all? Perhaps. But for now, I will continue to fight for people to express their opinions even the ridiculous, revolting ones - like most of Howard Dean's. Why?

Because right now...the item on the chopping block is one that I find very easy to say, "That should be illegal! You shouldn't be able to burn an American flag!" But next might come something a little closer to my heart...and then...something even closer. And when they finally came for me, there was no one left to say anything. We have to protect ALL the rights...even when they are expressed in disgusting ways.

It looks like a flag...it's a flag

 

[Gem]

BullyPulpit Wrote:

It looks like a flag...it's a flag

Um...yeah...except for the teensie problem of that being completely not true...you go with that. Reality has never been one of your strong suits here, so why go changing things now.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have mixed feelings on this one. I'm certainly not going to burn a flag anytime soon, but I can understand the reasoning behind calling it free speech. However, I have two points to make.

First, since they are making this a constitutional amendment, it is inherently constitutional.

Second, why doesn't someone do something to EXPAND free speech by repealing the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" acts?

 

[IControlThePast]

I see a big problem when people fought and died for our freedom and now it's should be ok to burn what it is that they represent?

I whole heartedly agree. People fought and died, not for a piece of cloth that you can buy in a store, but the symbol of freedom, including the freedom to burn that flag. Making amendments such as this is burninging that symbol of freedom.

Some points: If we're really concerned about this, which we're not because hardly anybody burns the flag here, why not just require all flags to be made of fire retardant fabric?

Burning the flag is distasteful, but it is free speech. It should be legal, but if I ever see anyone doing it, I'll exersize my right to free speech by extingiushing that flame

 

[IControlThePast]

Someone recently posted a link to a video that showed some middle easterns burning one in the streets of NY. If those muslims are going to cry over the mistreatment of their precious koran then by all means people should make a stink out of flag burning.

See, if I catch a raghead burning a flag in the street and kick his ass I'll go to jail and he will go home. Doesn't sound right to me but everyones opinions are different. Like I said though, I don't really care what they push for and if it passes or not, I just think it's flat out wrong.

Well, they're decrying the supposed abuse of the Koran by people acting in representation of our government, which is different than just a citizen doing it. Even a government official not acting as representative of the government should be free to go out into the streets of NY and burn one Koran down.

I'd definately want to kick his ass, but I'd know there would be consequences. I'd just douse his fire, and if that pissed him off and he attacked me, I could kick his ass in self defense.

 

[Merlin]

<blockquote><b>Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression</b>

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; <i><b>or abridging the freedom of speech</i></b>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem.

As far as speech goes, speech is a form of expression. Contributing to your favorite political campaign or politician is a form of expression. The B&D videos in the adult section of your local video store are a form of expression. The newspaper you read every day is a form of expression. The 'news' on FOX 'News' is a form of expression. This forum is a form of expression. Burning a flag is a form of expression. If all are not protected, then none are safe.

Bullypulpit, I stand by my interpretation of what "or abridging the freedom of speech" means in the Constitution. When they said "or of the press" that clinched it for me. They figured if you can say something, you should be able to write it also. Notice that it dosen't say "freedom of expression" It says "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" You said "The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem". So when are you going into recovery?

 

[no1tovote4]

There was a reason why the Right to Free Speech was in the First Amendment right along with the Freedom of Expression, this was a brand new concept at the time. Before this time people were unable to speak out against the governments of their countries without repercussion.

The flag is more than just a symbol of the Union, it is also a symbol of government and many who burn the flag are simply protesting an action of the government in a way that will gather more attention than simple signs. That the press flocks to it and shows it on TV is a sign of how rare that it actually is for somebody in the US to burn the flag and how successful they are because we are ready to beat them with bats etc for their action against our symbol.

However a symbol of the Union and of Government is exactly that, a symbol, no less and no more. It is not an act of war, only a desperate attempt to gather attention to a cause that otherwise would be ignored and should continue to be ignored rather than flocked toward by crowds of people with bats ready to defend a symbol.

Amazingly, according to flag handling rules, as soon as a flame hits the flag it ceases to even be a flag at all. There is nobody burning flags, except as perceived by an emotional reaction to an action of another. There are laws against burning almost anything in city limits and people can be prosecuted under such laws even while taking part in this particular expression of dissatisfaction.

I personally believe that any move by the government to actually take from people a right of expression in order to protect our tender sensibilities is a mistake of the highest order.

 

[-Cp]

How is this not unconstitutional? Come ON people...

Orwellian names like "Patriot Act" and "Freedom Fries" are one thing, but what's next? Repealing one's right to speak ill of his/her country? Man, its like the pigs sneaking into the barn in the middle of the night to change the rules just a little.. does anyone care?

Not to mention the fact that THIS IS A NON-ISSUE. This is a completely political push-button, 'more patriotic than thou', non-issue. Who does flag burning affect? How many flags has anyone ever seen burned outside of the Middle East? Way to waste taxpayer time and money, congress, not to mention shred the constitution just a little bit.

Can I go burn your house down under the 1st amendment and call that "Free speech"?

".........It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag...."

-Zell Miller - Sept 1 2004 RNC New York City

 

[archangel]

<blockquote><b>Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression</b>

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; <i><b>or abridging the freedom of speech</i></b>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

an abhorent act. Why burn the flag when you can get on your soapbox and cast vile verbal attacks on any number of things American. It's the act of burning the flag from which the protester/ middle eastern asshole/ Anti-American foreign and domestic/ gets their jollies. But is this "act" speech? I, for one, think not. Seriously doubt this will ever get passed or pass enough states for ratification, however I'm all for it. Why not consider our flag what the burners of it consider it as; The Symbol of The United States. But no alot of lefties won't agree. After all if you don't handle the Koran with kid gloves you're a "torturer". But if you burn the symbol of our country you're just "expressing yourself". If you did it in front of me the baseball bat treatment would be appropo.

The clue here is "Expressing" oneself...thus speech...burning a flag is not speech..it is pure and simple destruction of a object...and should be treated as such...fire and joy from those doing this deed does not represent "Freedom of speech" vocal chords are required to express one's speech! or written comments...not destruction of property... especially when the property is a symbol of our country...spin it all you want... it still does not logically compute...enough said!

 

[OCA]

Why on earth does it always get so base and invective with you, OCA? Who made this guy a mod?

Nakey you sound like a guy who just had something hidden deep inside him touched by someone else....truth hurts.

 

[OCA]

The clue here is "Expressing" oneself...thus speech...burning a flag is not speech..it is pure and simple destruction of a object...and should be treated as such...fire and joy from those doing this deed does not represent "Freedom of speech" vocal chords are required to express one's speech! or written comments...not destruction of property... especially when the property is a symbol of our country...spin it all you want... it still does not logically compute...enough said!

Absolutely.

Burning the flag is an act of desecration and vandalism and has absolutely no root in free speech.

 

[OCA]

You don't get it, not because you're ignorant, but because you don't want to. Burning the flag is not only free speech...it is protected by the First Amendment. But the Constitution doesn't mean as much to you as you claim it does, now does it?

Again, and yes you are ignorant, burning the flag is desecration and vandalism and is by no stretch of the imagination free speech.

 

[IControlThePast]

lol, then you will both go to jail for public fighting and disturbance!

Surely a judge would not punish an upstanding citizen from defending himself

Can I go burn your house down under the 1st amendment and call that "Free speech"?

No, but that is only because it is my property. You could certainly burn your own house down and call it free speech as long as it didn't violate a fire code.

Again, and yes you are ignorant, burning the flag is desecration and vandalism and is by no stretch of the imagination free speech.

You can't "vandalise" your own property. What are you going to do, bring charges against yourself?

 

[Bonnie]

And soooo

If burning the flag is exercising freedom of expression, then why isn't freedom of expression protected from political correctness on college campuses, in the workplace, at certain media outlets and even politicians???

Why are college professors who teach or speak from a conservative point of view not tolerated???

 

[menewa]

First, since they are making this a constitutional amendment, it is inherently constitutional.

You said it all right here. case closed.

 

[menewa]

And soooo

If burning the flag is exercising freedom of expression, then why isn't freedom of expression protected from political correctness on college campuses, in the workplace, at certain media outlets and even politicians???

Why are college professors who teach or speak from a conservative point of view not tolerated???

They are. There's just not that many of them. So their voices are easily drowned out.

 

[Annie]

I have to agree with the following, more or less:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004788.php

June 23, 2005
Addressing The Symptom And Not The Disease

The House passed a Constitutional amendment that will guarantee Congress the power to regulate how the flag is treated, including the power to outlaw "desecration" of the American flag, on a fairly bipartisan vote. The measure now goes to the Senate, which has killed it in years past on a more partisan basis, but the Washington Post reports that may change this year:

A constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to ban flag burning passed the House yesterday, and congressional leaders said it has a strong chance to clear the Senate for the first time, sending it to the states for ratification.

The House has passed the measure four times before, but it has always fallen short of the two-thirds vote needed in the Senate. But several changes in the Senate shifted several votes to the bill's supporters, and a lobbyist who leads the opposition said the absence of one or two senators could mean that the measure would pass.

"There are too many scenarios where we lose," said Terri Ann Schroeder, senior lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We're very concerned." Schroeder counts 65 solid votes in favor of the amendment of the 67 needed for passage. "We still have a number of folks that have never voted, and we still have a potential problem if 100 members do not . . . vote," she said.

The issue has been a favorite of conservatives since a 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling in 1989 that protected flag desecration as free speech.

Normally, I would favor almost anything the ACLU opposes just as a guidepost to common sense. In this case, however, the proposal has two major flaws, both of which I believe are ultimately fatal to the intent of the amendment, which is to stop people from burning the flag at protests. And while I'll wind up on the side of the ACLU as far as this amendment goes, their approach to the subject comprises at least a major part of one of its flaws.

First, practically speaking, the amendment doesn't necessarily create a ban on flag desecration; it merely gives Congress the opening to do so to counter the Supreme Court's decision determining that desecration is political speech. Congress can then pass laws on a majority basis to enable and enforce a ban. However, questions about what constitutes a flag, what constitutes desecration, and how law enforcement should enforce it will dog Congress. It's easy to posture, but given the ability, I don't see this as a practical or pressing law-enforcement issue, especially when the terrorists are probably the least likely to out themselves by lighting up Old Glory in public -- at least not in the US.

Can it be done? Sure, but all that will wind up happening is that a lot of people will get hauled into court to get their hands slapped, and since it will be a federal crime, the cases will jam the federal courts. Instead of burning "real" flags, people will start burning paper representations. Will that fall under the ban, or does the flag have to be cloth to be desecrated?

Second, and in my mind more important, the push for this amendment comes from Congress' (correct) impulse to push back against an activist court that creates new rights and laws out of thin air. In this case, we have a court decision that made arson equivalent to political speech and untouchable by law, while a subsequent court ruled that actual political speech could be subject to prior restraint when conducted in conjunction with an election, thanks to the BCRA, John McCain, and Russ Feingold. The amendment in this case shouldn't be that narrow -- it should recognize that speech doesn't consist of anything else but the verbal or written publication of actual speech, not arson, nude dancing, or blowing up buildings, which is the logical extension of the 1989 decision. Everything else should be left to the Legislature to regulate.

In fact, the solution here isn't even an amendment. It is to nominate and confirm judges that not only will stop looking for emanations from penumbras that don't exist in the Constitution and will respect the division of powers instead of creating laws themselves. We need justices who understand that the so-called "living document" only means that it can be amended by the people when so desired, but otherwise means what it says. These ideas aren't radical, despite recent partisan mudflinging to the contrary.

The fact that two-thirds of the Senate appears to be ready to vote to approve this amendment shows a bipartisan recognition of the problem. Those who vote to approve this mistake should be held accountable for their inability to approve justices that would correct the actual problem of judicial activism and will reverse the most egregious examples of its implementation when the opportunities arise, starting with that 1989 decision that kicked this entire battle into high gear. Otherwise, what we will have will be hundreds of amendments addressing narrow issues that will create massive confusion and complications for legislatures and law-enforcement efforts. We will have the EU Constitution instead of the compact framework that has served us so well for the last two centuries.
Posted by Captain Ed at June 23, 2005 05:36 AM

 

[Markainion]

And soooo

If burning the flag is exercising freedom of expression, then why isn't freedom of expression protected from political correctness on college campuses, in the workplace, at certain media outlets and even politicians???

Why are college professors who teach or speak from a conservative point of view not tolerated???

A professor I had once told me that you could be both tolerant and ignorant. Probably the smartest thing a professor ever told me.