home

Flag v. Freedom

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Wed Jun 22, 2005 at 01:51:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

One of the most important rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution is the freedom to criticize the United States government. As the Supreme Court has recognized, that freedom can be exercised symbolically by disrespectful treatment of the country's symbols, including its flag.

Members of Congress who elevate symbols of freedom above actual freedom are again trying to amend the Constitution to restrict the ability to criticize the government by burning or otherwise desecrating the flag.

The House approved the proposal by 286-130, more than the two- thirds necessary to pass constitutional amendments.

The proposal will now pass to the Senate, where the outcome is difficult to predict.

The Senate last voted on a flag desecration amendment in 2000, falling four votes short of the 67 required to pass. Since that vote, 26 new senators have been elected.

Senators would do well to remember the words of Justice Brennan, who wrote for the Court in its reversal of Gregory Johnson's conviction for burning the flag in protest of the Republican National Convention in 1984.

[The] enduring lesson [of our precedents is] that the government may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message ... [or] the particular mode in which one chooses to express an idea. If we were to hold that a State may forbid flag burning wherever it is likely to endanger the flag's symbolic role, but allow it wherever burning a flag promotes that role--as where, for example, a person ceremoniously burns a dirty flag--we would be saying that when it comes to impairing the flag's physical integrity, the flag itself may be used as a symbol--as a substitute for the written or spoken word or a "short cut from mind to mind"--only in one direction. We would be permitting a State to "prescribe what shall be orthodox" by saying that one may burn the flag to convey one's attitude toward it and its referents only if one does not endanger the flag's representation of nationhood and national unity.

Justice Brennan borrowed the words of Justice Jackson, who wrote for the Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

The Senate should not presume to lessen our freedom by "prescribing what shall be orthodox." Again in the words of Justice Brennan:

To paraphrase Justice Holmes, we submit that nobody can suppose that this one gesture of an unknown man will change our Nation's attitude towards its flag. ... Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson's is a sign and source of our strength.

< Policing the Police | Feds Raid SF Pot Clubs, Homes >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Flag v. Freedom | 64 comments (64 topical)
    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    I once designed, but never built a flag-burning machine as an art project: It would have used an old lollypop dispenser, with paper cocktail 'flags', and for a quarter, you would turn the central knob, and a flag would rotate forward, and a cigarette lighter would torch it. You could use small wooden crosses, or stars of David, or little "korans" as well. (I called it 'Offensive Device', and I can't find the dispenser any more. Must have gotten lost a couple of moves back.)Would this be covered in the amendment? I tried to have the conversation with my dad about flag burning, and he said “I fought in WW2 for that flag.” “But, Dad, didn’t you fight for what it stands for, not just a piece of cloth?” and he didn’t get it. The distinction between the symbol (flag, a piece of cloth in a specific design) and the country and it’s liberties, is lost. And Fat Tony Scalia said something about just hating to see bearded protesters burning a flag. It offended him, in some way. Of course, he offends me, but I’m in no position to take action on it.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    a useless and unnecessary amendment-flag burners are their own worst enemy(decriminalizing a punch in the mouth from those so inclined would seem sufficient). as to the dad that didn't get it, maybe he wasn't the one with the problem.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#3)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    An instructor of mine, Harry Crews, once wrote about the way some people fail to distinguish between something real and the representation of something real. He noted that some people, on seeing the word sh*t in print, react as if they'd just been handed a steaming hot specimen. Such is the case here. The flag is not freedom. It's a representation of freedom. When we choose to protect the symbol rather than freedom itself, we've lost our way.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    How did the vote go in the house? Voting yes were 77 Democrats and 209 Republicans. Voting no were 117 Democrats, 12 Republicans and one independent. Could not find a release with names.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    atrios has a bit today about how the proper way to put a flag to rest is to burn it. this law would then have to be enforce on the reason the flag was burnt, not on the actual burning. ed, you might want to be careful, you might be punching a girl scout in the mouth, they surly burn their flags

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    what amazes here are the posts on proselytizers where the mention of one's faith, if found offensive by the listener, should be prohibited. however, if offended by the flag being burnt, TS because you are simply not enlightened enough to understand.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#7)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Let's try it again, Ed. When the government (or its agents) tell you what you have to believe, that's bad. It doesn't matter if the government tells you that you have to be a Christian or you have to respect the flag, you're not really free if the government can tell you what to believe. Proselytizing at the AFA? That's agents of the government telling cadets they have to be Christians. Flag burning? That's agents of the government telling people they can't use a specific symbol to communicate an unpopular message. Now here's the quiz, Ed. What do being against religious coercion and being against limits on political expression have in common?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Flag burning again? this is one of those tired issues that comes up every 10 years or so. Kind of like the newsman doing a special report on getting out of a car when it's underwater is retread every 5 years or so. I'm a red blooded red state voter myself but how many flags are we really talking about saving here? Get on to passing energy reform, or a tax cut. What about the crazy Middle Easterners who burn flags on a daily basis? Is that illegal too? What a waste of time.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#9)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Well what you won't say is our non nation is moving into the ideals of the third world idea of government, you know like Mexico and south america, with the symbols of the lie about the kind heart and fell your pain and a better world under the rule of law which is away of saying one guy rule!...like saddam and hitler and the lefts and rights real love Stalinism under the good heart rule of lies and camps and rape and mass murder hidden under the laws of evil people, you know like bush. see it for what it is, and buy guns for the coming freedom movement of real people fighting for a real life of justice by laws and not by some guy handing out orders to kill you and dismantle your own culture and life. in other words you will be the victim of some nut case government if you just stand around asking for death in some camp system of reeducation.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Where's that facisim checklist again. Could someone check off the part about a rise in nationalism and worshiping our national symbols. Meanwhile we sink deeper into debt. So this is how once great republics crumble. B

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    When I grew up my parents proudly flew the flag every weekend and it was aloft at every cub and boy scout event I went to. Then I went to college. After I graduated and until a few years ago (I'm 42), seeing the flag stirred w/in me a similar response to what B says just above. I'd unconsciously ingested the opinion that our flag was "jingoistic." I was kind of embarrassed by it. I now fly the flag often, and wonder why our colleges and/or society teaches us to be embarrassed by our own flag? Burning the flag should be illegal. Use any of the zillions of other methods to voice your critisism of the government.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    To me, the Flag of the United States represents the IDEALS of the United States of America. Not the freedoms. Not the people. And certainly not the government. As citizens, we constantly disagree about all sorts of things. But, I think we all agree that we want our country to be the best that it can be. We want every citizen to reach his full potential. Sure, we disagree about the proper path to achieve this. We even disagree about how to define these goals. But that doesn’t stop us from trying. And to a large degree, this disagreement helps us to reach our mutual goals. Of course, not everyone will agree with me. We don’t have a general consensus on what the flag represents. Which, to my mind, makes calling the act of desecrating the flag “a freedom of speech issue”, ridiculous. It has as much relevance as tuning in static on a radio and saying, “There. That’s what I think.” I feel that desecrating the flag is an act simply designed to hurt and offend people like myself. And certainly as deplorable as flushing a Koran down the toilet. I’m amazed by the number of people that think the Koran issue is terrible, but desecrating the flag is admirable. Still, I’m against a constitutional amendment. What punishment is appropriate for someone who offends your deeply held, core beliefs? If someone accidentally killed your 4-year old child, that would be terrible. But what punishment would he desire, if he then walked up to you and said, “The human body has about $5.00 worth of chemicals. Here’s your five bucks.”

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Ed,
    what amazes here are the posts on proselytizers where the mention of one's faith, if found offensive by the listener, should be prohibited.
    Anybody tempted to take Ed serious on this point should go read the prosletization thread and know better. You can find examples of liberals (not necessarily TL-like-liberals) restricting speech simply for being offensive. This happens indirectly through employment law, and directly through college speech codes. But, I don't recall any liberals being brazen enough to convert the Constitution to a speech-supression tool.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#14)
    by jen on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    The flag burning thing again? ok, what are they trying to distract us from? If the amendment passes I expect cops to ticket every car flying a raggedy old frazzeled flag. I expect putting flags on tshirts to be banned. ESPECIALY when they are on a stained old tshirts whith the unfortunate words "these colors don't run" when they OBviously have. I was raised to believe that wearing a flag or putting it on products was disrespectful. That might be a slight problem, wouldn't it? Defining what desecrates the flag and what doesn't. Especially when you have to factor in intent.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#15)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    Oddly enough, the first effort at a flag desecration law would have prohibited using the flag to promote candidates in elections.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#16)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    soldier:
    I feel that desecrating the flag is an act simply designed to hurt and offend people like myself. And certainly as deplorable as flushing a Koran down the toilet.
    Funny you should say that. When the Koran flushing was the topic of discussion, those more inclined towards the right held that it was no big deal to flush the Koran, since it was just a piece of paper.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM EST
    The Koran comparison is inaccurate (aside from conservative hypocrisy re book vs piece of cloth) because the soldiers were flushing the prisoners' Korans. If the prisoners were flushing their own Korans, it wouldn't have mattered (except to the prison plumber, i guess). I don't know of anyone going around and trying to burn a flag that belongs to someone else so that makes the Koran offenses seem even more despicable. Freedom to criticize the government is crucial in making sure the government doesn't suck. I see where this is going... and why isn't trampling the Bill of Rights illegal?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Posted by Soldier at June 22, 2005 05:06 PM To me, the Flag of the United States represents the IDEALS of the United States of America. Not the freedoms. did i get something wrong? you are saying freedom isnt an american ideal? isn't our dear leader constantly saying that the terraist don't like us because of our "freedoms"??? crimany getalong. im out of here. im going watch some old spiderman comics. im sorry but i just gotta say one more i jeebeddious fffew man

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    "I’m amazed by the number of people that think the Koran issue is terrible, but desecrating the flag is admirable." one more. the no.1 reason i care about the koran flushing is because our current administration said it didnt happen even in the face of evidence that it did. trolls--trolls of the world unite--hey trolls, feel lucky that you live in a country where you can be a troll

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#20)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    I’ve never had an occasion to burn the flag; if this passes to the states it will be my first. “Burning the flag should be illegal.” As you note burning a flag is an expression of opinion; a right many have killed and died to prevent governments home and abroad from infringing. In my estimation your life, or a hundred thousand of your ilk, is worth less than my right of free expression. This attempt is no different in spirit than those that seek to outlaw so-called ‘hatespeech’ or other kinds of speech composed of bigoted and disgusting ideas. Some of the most unpopular and seemingly untenable ideas have been the greatest; equal endowment of inalienable rights to all folks, representative government, freedom of speech and assembly, and so forth. Granted, some ideas are garbage, but lets let folks market them in free debate. For the whim of a transient majority to muzzle currently unpopular ideologues is reckless.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#21)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Well, one thing you can count on for sure. If this passes and flag burning is outlawed, you'll see a sudden increase in the use of flag burning as a protest. After all, what's the use (in their minds) of that kind of protest if you can't get yourself arrested? Right now, the only ones who are really desecrating the flag are the self-serving, greedy, corrupt politicians who continually pose in front of it. Can we make THAT illegal?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    I think this is just a "testing of the waters" -- the radical right's way of getting their hands on the Constitution, feeling out what it will take (public reaction, support in congress, the states, etc) to get a Constitutional amendment passed and then take it "live" to a bigger, more important issue. Like "traditional" marriage or abortion or state religion, "PATRIOT" Act stuff.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#23)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    the flag being piss on is normal and social engineering ideals for the idea of dismantling the USA, Don't you get it? this is a fight and it is real as real as world war two people?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    gilltots, Since the Koran flushing incidents never happened, it’s hard to say who actually owned those Korans. But, if you have access to other information about these flushing, there is something I would like to know. What were the make and model of these toilets? I’d sure like to get one. Anyone with kids will understand why. Seriously, flag burnings have occurred where the flags were taken, by force, from the owners. Also, bystanders have taken flags away from people attempting to burn them. I’m not sure how this is relevant, though. You could probably get more information from the New York Times, late 1960’s, early 1970’s. And I fully agree with your comment about the Bill of Rights. In fact, the whole Constitution is being trampled.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    A few facts: * The Constitution provides for the amendment process, so it's hardly "trampling" on the Constitution to invoke one of its provisions. *Amendments can only pass when they enjoy overwhelming popular support. Democracy can be so messy, esp. when you disagree with the masses. * Waking naked down Main Street is also a form of expression. The fact that it's illegal doesn't make us a fascist state. * All those decades when flag burning was illegal, Amerika was still a democracy.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#26)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Mr. Bill writes;
    I tried to have the conversation with my dad about flag burning, and he said “I fought in WW2 for that flag.” But, Dad, didn’t you fight for what it stands for, not just a piece of cloth?” and he didn’t get it.
    No, you are the one who didn't get it.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Mr. Bill, What exactly was your dad fighting for? if he was fighting for freedom and american ideals then you are right, he doesn't get it. in my mind anyway that's kinda the point of the country - freedom. what ever happened to that "i don't agree with a word you say but i'll defend to the death your right to say it" mentality? now it's "i don't agree with a word you say and i'll censor you and deport you to be tortured AFTER i villify you and question your patriotism." Fight for Justice - good points. but what does walking down main street naked signify? i am mad at my clothes? it's hot out? laundry day? her husband came home?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#28)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    B, Is right, long live B 22 june.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#29)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Flag burning makes my blood boil. But as long as it's legal people should be allowed to do so, and I've spoken out on the issue, to my peril, in public before. It is a dramatic, though far less so than it used to be, manner of political speech. However, this is an amendment that should be brought to the states. Unlike the cries of facism, and right wing test waters, this is an apolitical issue. It's not an attempt to stifle free speech, rather it is an attempt protect our national symbol, no differnet than saying you can't pick bluebonnets or kill mockingbirds (what a repugnant bird) in Texas. The flag represents all of us, not only conservatives. --BigTex

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    The flag is a symbol of nationalism, not freedom. The right to burn a symbol of nationalism is freedom.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    What if I burn another country's flag, wingers?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#32)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    I think my all-time least favorite bumper sticker is (and I am not making this up) "I support the flag." Not "I support the democratic ideals upon which this country was founded." Not even "I support Freedom (tm)." But a piece of cloth. Yes, I know, millions have died with that flag on their uniform, but when you get right down to it there have been plenty of countries throughout history that had a battle standard. The flag is probably the least unique thing about America. That's what galls me about this "debate".

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Soldier, I have no problem with people in Iran burning the Q'uran or flushing it or desecrating it to protest their gov't, but when it is alleged that we did it to "soften" prisoners, we are not exercising free speech we are humiliating prisoners' belief systems to our gain. I have never burned a flag or intended to as it is not my way of communicating dissent, however I do support it under the right to free speech. Get a permit and give a speech against the gov't, see how many news outlets show up. The flag burning is certain to draw attention and coverage from at least local media and at best msm. Sure it is a gimmick to get coverage and get their point heard. Some veterans, like myself are not so attached to the flag that I am offended by its burning. In fact, I readily acknowledge that I served to defend that right. Just like I served to defend the right of the klan to disperse their hate pamphlets and christians the right to disperse those "you are going to hell" pamphlets. Freedom is not always pretty, but it is freedom nonetheless.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#34)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    et al Speaking of flag burning, here is a nice example of same. JL writes:
    The flag burning is certain to draw attention and coverage from at least local media and at best msm.
    Actually, in the above case, it didn't. I wonder why. et al - The flag represents the country, and as such it represents what each of us sees as being the country. It would be nice if those on the Left, who are always preaching tolerance and "rights," would have the tolerance to not offend their fellow citizens by burning the flag. That they do not speaks volumes of their poliotical philsophy and beliefs.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    I can't believe this is even on the radar screen with all the problems facing the nation. If you are not offended often, you don't live in a free country. The only things it should be illegal to burn are people and private property.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    My 'flag-burning machine' was more or less a thought experiment. I don't plan to burn flags, but will note that the legislation on this uses intent as a test of criminality. Ironic to see folks who opposed hate-crime legislation supporting this. The question of what is a flag and what is actionable in this amendment is not clear, and will be before the courts for a while. There is a lot of speech and expression I hate, but I would ban nothing. It's (still, despite the best effort of some) a free country. It may be stupid or politically incorrect to burn a flag, but it does not harm me, or anyone as far as I can see. Offence is a mental state, one the experient is responsible for. So.... Frame this as property rights: "it's my flag, to do with as I will." And if someone incites to riot with a burning flag, arrest them for that. If they burn a state-owned flag, or somenone else's flag, it's destruction of property. Or breaks, I dunno, clean air regulations (hope the bloody thing isn't polyester>) But this stuff is about just creating a thought crime. And it won't stop with flag desecration. "The President is the elected representative of our nation. Criticizing him is helping the enemy..." There is no end to what can be forbidden.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    PPJ: Do you support the flying and display of the rebel flag? As an aside, in a recent survey, 63% of Americans do not think there should be an amendment banning flag burning. Rush Limbaugh calling Hillary a MAN offends many people in this nation, should we ban his show? Bill O'Reilly offends millions on a daily basis with his rhetoric, should we ban him? Or are we as a nation only banning what you deem offensive? People on the right such as yourself that criticize those on the left and in the middle, while practicing double standards are the problem. Not those that say "Rush Limbaugh" is a fathead, but his speech makes him a constitutionally protected fathead.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    As long as we are discussing offensive symbols, why not add to the debate the confederate flag and what it represents. How many Americans died at the hands of those fighting under the confederate flag? How many black americans are offended by the confederate flag? Should we ban the confederate flag because its meaning has morphed into black people stay away from my house? Who is flying the confederated flag on their front porch? What are they protesting? Ask a black American what that flag represents to them. Are we going to ban that flag? Should we ban that flag on symbolism? I find that most who argue against the desecration of the stars and stripes are usually in favor of public display of the confederate flag for "historical purposes" and claim those that are against its display are lacking in historical perspective. Ban the flag burning as not applicable under free speech as it is deemed offensive to some, than let's get rid of the confederate flag, the swastika, crosses and the ten commandments. All of those offend me and nearly every one of my friends.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#39)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    PPJ/Jim,
    It would be nice if those on the Left, who are always preaching tolerance and "rights," would have the tolerance to not offend their fellow citizens by burning the flag.
    Cheap shot. Find me one person who preaches tolerance and burns flags. Don't know any? Then you're making crap up. I'll let you in on a little secret. Islamofascists, like the ones in the story you linked to, are on the right rather than the left. Sticking to old rules rather than adapting. Heavy reliance on religion. Telling people what to do with their personal lives. And do you see heavily progressive taxation and state-funded social services in places like pre-war Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia? I don't actually know the answer to that one, maybe somebody here does...

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Re: the confederate flag. Let me say first that I am a native rural southerner, with confederate ancestors. There are many confederate flags, but what we are talking about is the Battle flad, the St. Andrews Cross one, that was flown seldom and late in the 'War of Northern Aggression'. (uh, it's a joke..) I object to it due to it's use in the Jim Crow era, when if was waved as a bloody shirt to symbolize White Supremacy and the whole corpus of racist laws. While I'm sure folk have the right to use it (and lots of otherwise good folk use it as a way to say "I'm from here", even if their ancestors where less than sure about the Confederacy), I support removing it as an offical flag anywhere. It's too stained by racism and bigotry to be respectable.. I've done other art pieces, taking the Battle flag, and the old Georga State Flag, which incorporated the Battle flag, and reversing the color to those of a retinal afterimage (red becomes dark green; blue, orange red; black, white). For the old Georgia Flag, which had the state seal with the Battle flag, I changed the seal: instead of a three pillared Doric temple, labeled 'Constitution', with a guy with a musket, and the words "Wisdom, justice, moderation" (as if!) and "Constitution", there would be church labeled 'Liberty', a black angel with a sword, and the legend "I Have a Dream."

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    I can't believe this is even on the radar screen with all the problems facing the nation.
    Makes perfect sense to me. It's a good distraction/wedge issue, and it will keep the peasants from thinking about how their jobs went to China and their kids became cannon fodder for the Israel lobby. It works every time! And we will all feel good about protecting a symbol while we gut the Bill of Rights. Do we really deserve any rights anyway? Remember, the terrorists HATE OUR FREEDOM. So the most obvious answer is to get rid of it.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    The flag is a symbol of nationalism, not freedom. The right to burn a symbol of nationalism is freedom.
    Cheetah-exactly right. The Flag is only a symbol, nothing more, nothing less. A symbol is NOT the thing it represents, a distinction many in favor of a constitutional amendment cannot see. People who get overly hung up about symbols, are, as the wise man taught us, symbol-minded. Seems to me that if spending dollars in an election can be considered "free speech", I see no reason flag burning shouldn't be seen the same. "Has there been an epidemic of flag-burning I haven't been notified of"?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#43)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    It's a good distraction/wedge issue, and it will keep the peasants from thinking about how their jobs went to China...
    That's my read of it too. A big distraction from issues of importance.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    we managed to survive with such laws on the books until the S. Court in its infinite wisdom found burning to be speech. when those on the other side of issue strike back, the Republic is in peril?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#45)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    "It would be nice if those on the Left, who are always preaching tolerance and "rights," would have the tolerance to not offend their fellow citizens by burning the flag."
    Yes, that would be nice. However, "being nice" isn't in the Constitution, nor do I think it should be. Now excuse me while I go set fire to some other fake patriot straw men.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Flag burning makes my blood boil.
    I just don't understand people, I guess. It's just a piece of cloth. When someone says that they get choked up looking at a US flag waving majestically in the wind, I can only think of that scene at the end of 1984 when Smith does the same thing looking at a picture of Big Brother. Patriotism scares the hell out of me, I guess.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Quaker, Why don't you set fire to the post a little above mine? The post that talks about "being nice" not being in the Constitution. No one said that!

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    The overly-patriotic who want a constitutional amendment banning flag burning remind me of the taliban.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#49)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Soldier: No one said that? PPJ did. See the blockquote?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    What offends me are coffins draped in this flag, coming back from a war. A war declared by people who know nothing about fighting one.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#52)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    As you note burning a flag is an expression of opinion; a right many have killed and died to prevent governments home and abroad from infringing. In my estimation your life, or a hundred thousand of your ilk, is worth less than my right of free expression. What about shooting a bald eagle? That too is a symbol of America. Should the prohibition against shooting the bald eagle be lifted in the name of free expression? To say no is to be intellectually dishonest.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    What about shooting a bald eagle? That too is a symbol of America. Should the prohibition against shooting the bald eagle be lifted in the name of free expression? To say no is to be intellectually dishonest. Nonsense. Bald Eagles are protected wildlife. If they become so numerous as to be huntable, and the states or feds agree to make them a 'fair game' animal, by all means, shoot yer limit. But as a protest? Who is shooting eagles for political symbolism? This is a debate designed to divide folks. It's a emotional argument that is a distraction. I happen to enjoy the sort of intellectual games that make for political and conceptual art. But it's not helping us win a war or keep our liberties. When we can't deal with reality, we deal in symbols.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    When you figure out how to mass produce Bald Eagles to avoid extinction Big Tex, you let me know. Until then, let WalMart keeping selling those great flags that are made in Asia, and the protestors keep burning them at about one millionth less the pace of production. Glanton, nicely said.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#55)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    “Should the prohibition against shooting the bald eagle be lifted in the name of free expression?” Two problems: I don’t own a bald eagle and animals have distinct protection separate from inanimate possessions. Burning my neighbor’s flag, graffiti, pieing, punching yuppies; all forms of expression. The difference being that when I burn my flag the only thing of yours that gets hurt is your feelings. “To say no is to be intellectually dishonest.” If we are going to outlaw public expression that could result in hurt feeling I suggest you practice holding your tongue. I’m about as thick skinned as they come, but others … And speaking of hurt feelings … “Burning the flag should be illegal. Use any of the zillions of other methods to voice your critisism of the government.” If there was any other act that portrayed the exact sentiment burning the flag does it would be part of this amendment. Because really, your pi$$ed about the sentiment; burning the flag, as part of a respectful ceremonial disposal, isn’t what we are talking about.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Wingers: "You shall make no graven image or any likeness of anything in heaven or earth, nor bow down to any such thing." Discuss flag worship re the 10 commandments.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Further proof of how moronic of an idea this constitutional amendment is...If passed, all someone who wants to burn a flag has to do to avoid punishment is add an extra star or an extra stripe. It ceases to be a true American flag, and can be burned at will without consequence. Those who want laws or amendments to protect their fickle sensibilities and feelings don't want a free country. To say otherwise is intelectually dishonest.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    LOL, you want to stop desecrating the American flag? Stop having it mass produced by slaves and child laborers in China. Duh.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#59)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    OK, here's a hypothetical: Joe Protester takes a bedsheet and paints red stripes on it. No stars, no blue field. He takes it down to his local antiwar rally and sets it on fire. When he's arrested, he shows the charred remnant and says, "it wasn't a flag." The cop that arrests him (under the spanking-new consitutional amendment against flag-burning)says, "looked like a flag to me. I was offended." Now what?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    "Because really, your pi$$ed about the sentiment; burning the flag, as part of a respectful ceremonial disposal, isn’t what we are talking about." Some of that finals week meth must've gone to your head, pw, where did I say anything about "a respectful ceremonial disposal?" I care about the act of desecrating the flag - one prime example of which is burning it in "protest." There's no other act that portrays the exact sentiment of burning the flag? Tough. There are plenty of "acts" which are illegal, and rightly so, yet are singular in their "sentiment."

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#61)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    OK, here's another hypothetical question: After an amendment is added to the US Constitution prohibiting desecration of the American flag, the state of Texas amends its own constitution to outlaw burning the Texas flag. Is that all right? Does your answer change if it's Massachusetts instead of Texas?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#62)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    The Texas legislature wouldn't have any new authority under the proposed amendment. The Texas Flag has been described as an "easy-to-read" version of the U.S. flag. Empowered by the amendment, Congress might write their no-flag-burning law vaguely enough that the Texas flag couldn't be burned because it is effectively a U.S. flag. Regardless of legalities, I can't recommend burning any flag with any combination of stars and stripes in Texas. Except in Austin and parts of Dallas, we tend to be armed and touchy about such things.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#63)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    The Texas legislature wouldn't have any new authority under the proposed amendment.
    Wouldn't need any. The Texas legislator already has complete authority to initiate the process for amending the state's constitution. If it did so, wouldn't that amendment be more likely to pass constitutional examination at the federal level if there was a federal prohibition on burning the U.S. flag? And roy, you forgot the last question: Does your answer change if it's Massachusetts instead of Texas?

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#64)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    At the risk of boring everyone...
    If it did so, wouldn't that amendment be more likely to pass constitutional examination at the federal level if there was a federal prohibition on burning the U.S. flag?
    The federal legislation would derive its authority from the new amendment. The proposed amendment is narrowly tailored to cover the U.S. flag. Nothing changes for any other flag. The U.S. Constitution currently forbids states from banning the burning of state flag. That would still be the case. Amending the state constitution wouldn't create the authority. Same for Massachusetts (I haven't spelled that right the first time all day) as for Texas.

    Re: Flag v. Freedom (none / 0) (#65)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    But the reason flag burning is currently protected is on first amendment grounds. If an amendment carved out an exception for "revered objects" or even specifically for the flag of the United States, wouldn't that set a precedent? If a state constitutional amendment follwed ratification of a federal amendment, wouldn't the state amendment stand?

    Flag v. Freedom | 64 comments (64 topical)