The flag desecration amendment

[Minionman]

Someone suggested a new thread for this, so here goes. The first few posts on it from the "supreme court case" thread.

The flag burning talks are another amazing thing I heard of yesterday. Another winner from congress, first the steroids (which does effect younger sports players, but was still a popularity move), than Schiavo (I think a lot of people agree with this one), not they're arguing about flag burning. Yes, they have done some real work this year but there seems to be more of these "highly emotional" talks than before, unless I haven't been paying much attention.

About some reasons people give against allowing flag burning, here's what think about them.

It must be bad because people do it who want to attack the U.S: The problem with those people is that they want to kill/attack the country. falg burning may be their way of showing it, but just because one group of violent people does it doesn't mean anyone who does it is bad. Flag burning can symbolize a number of things, from wanting to nuke the U.S. to not liking a war to the flag having some dangerous chemical on it that needs to be burned off.

It symbolizes the U.S., so burning it counts as an attack on the U.S.: see above. the U.S. is made up of land with farms, buildings, cities, people computers with money stored on them, etc. Attacking one of these does attack the U.s. Burning a flag does not do that. While on symbols, it seems ot cheapen the costitution to write in an amendment for a single activity that is rarely done that also goes against another very important amendment, so for peopel who care abotu symbols, that's somethign else to absorb.

It's offensive: Tough noogies, I find some things offenive, I just have to get a thick skin and not let it bug me as much. I sure as heck don't run around asking for laws or amendments, so I don't like people tossing around other types of laws involving this kind of reason.

Burning is the proper way to dispose of a flag. The proposed amendment, I believe, concerns desecrating a flag -- burning is used in some protests that could be considered desecration.

I actually support the idea of an amendment that criminalizes desecrating a flag. Sure, go ahead. Make the penalties as stiff as you like! One caveat: I only support this on the grounds that *I* get to define "desecration".

Waving a flag, dressing in it, even burning it to express sincerely-held beliefs in the Constitution and this nation's higher purpose would, of course, not be desecrating a flag at all -- more like supporting what it stands for.

Dressing in flag bikini for the cover of a fashion mag -- desecration.

Wearing flag underwear to moon John Sunnunu at a cabinet meeting -- aggravated desecration. (That actually occurred during Bush Senior's administration. No word on whether Dubya will haul his father in under the proposed new amendment.)

Using the flag to sell used cars -- second-degree desecration. Maybe also fraud.

Wrapping oneself piously in the flag to distract the public from real issues one is afraid to tackle -- first degree desecration.

Wrapping oneself piously in the flag to attack political opponents or to hide one's own crimes: CAPITAL desecration.

Bring it on, politicians! There's room in Gitmo for a while bunch of you.

Sailboat

I am told by my minions and lackeys out in the world that today around where I live, a lot of people are flying their flags upside down or at half mast.

Fitting. Death of the American dream.

I have always stated I thought about moving out of this country, but I always, always meant it as a joke. I was never truly serious.

Canada is out, I don't think they would agree with my policy on firepower.

Anybody know any small islands for sale? I mean, far far away from America where they could just jerk it back out from under me after I paid hard currency for it.

Not sure where to, but this place no longer feels like home.

[jahcs]

I'll start off with my personal feelings. Flag burners aren't worth the time it takes to flick my Bic. If I see someone burning a flag in protest I am likely to have some very strong words, a call to the authorities for an unsafe fire in a public place, and charges under the hate speech legislation. It also dangerously shortens my fuse when it comes to physical violence.

Burning a flag is offensive. I don't care what country it's from. It may be a form of protest but a country's flag is a powerful symbol.
On our Nation's battlefields men died carrying it, charged through carnage to pick it up, and rallied around it to win our Nation's freedom and hold this Nation together.

I would put flag burning in the same category as burning a cross, desecrating a religious artifact, or using hate speech. I am an American. If you step on my flag you are stepping on me, those who came before me, and the ideals which we hold dear. I would not burn another Nation's flag for the same reasons.

With all that said I do not believe an Amendment to the Constitution is the appropriate place for restrictions on flag burning. The Constitution is a document that provides the framework for our government and enumerates the duties and powers of our leaders. 13 states have laws against the burning of crosses, and for good reason. If it needs to be stopped pass legislation, do not amend our government's framework.

Most would say burning a flag in protest is freedom of speech. I regard it as hate speech.

[Chaerophon]

Burning a flag is offensive. I don't care what country it's from. It may be a form of protest but a country's flag is a powerful symbol.

I regard it as hate speech.

First of all, I don't burn flags, nor do I advocate their burning. Nonetheless, that you take offense does not make it hate speech. Let's take a strong example to see if your characterization holds water... would it be hate speech if Black Americans had (as I'm sure some did) burned the flag during the civil rights movement in a symbolic gesture to indicate the divide between the nation's ideals and the reality of segregation and racism? Who are they hating? America? I don't think so - in fact, I think it is more true that they are demonstrating their love for America and its ideals. White people? If white people were all that the flag represented, then maybe, but I think that it is pretty clear that this is not the case. That you may not agree with their position or that you may be offended by the act does not make it hateful.

The origin of KKK cross burnings IS hateful - but not towards Christians. According to some brief research, the first cross burnings were initiated after early KKK members were inspired by a Scottish tradition whereby a cross was burned high on a hill in order to summon the clansmen to battle. THIS tradition stems from the emperor Constantine's vision of a fiery cross in the sky on the eve of a battle. Why hate speech? Because they are calling the brothers to arms against a particular social group (or a number of social groups), in this case, primarily blacks, but also Asians, jews, gays, and, generally speaking, anyone else who isn't a white protestant.

Unless the burning of a flag is meant to indicate a call to violence against Americans or a subversion of America's guiding constitutional/ideological norms (not just reinterpretation as in equality of right vs. equality of opportunity, but, e.g. a disavowal of the worth of equality of respect for all citizens) then I don't believe that it constitutes a hateful act. It is not necessarily being burnt as an act of hate against those who carried it into battle. Rather, it may be being burnt in memory of the goals and ideals for which those men and women who have carried the flag into battle sacrificed their lives, which may, in such a case, be perceived to have been lost. The burning of the flag, then, is intended to symbolically represent the forgotten reasons for their sacrifice - ie, this is no longer the America that those brave men and women protected, etc.

With that being said, I reiterate: I don't burn flags. I think that it is in bad taste. However, that does not, to my mind, make it necessarily hateful; In this case, it seems to me that hate is all about intent.

[Guest]

Well we might as well the Supreme court already is on the stupis train with saying cross burning is illegal.


Personally I am against both(for different reasons) but I think both should be allowed.

[jahcs]

Rather, it may be being burnt in memory of the goals and ideals for which those men and women who HAVE carried the flag into battle sacrificed their lives, which may, in such a case, be perceived to have been lost.

With that being said, I reiterate: I don't burn flags.  I think that it is in bad taste.  However, that does not, to my mind, make it necessarily hateful; In this case, it seems to me that hate is all about intent.
[right][snapback]81572[/snapback][/right]

To poke fun at your argument: If I burn a flag because of this latest travesty by the Supreme Court it's ok. If I burn a flag because I hate the Supreme Court's latest decision it isn't.

I understand your argument and it is compelling and correct on many levels. Again, more evidence that a Constitutional Amendment isn't the correct course of action.

I stand ready to defend the ideals of this Nation. The flag is a symbol of those ideals. I regard an attack on the flag as an attack on those ideals. A protest is used to gain attention for your point of view on an issue. If your protest includes material regarded as hatefull by many folks, are you at fault? Life is full of unintended consequences.

EDIT: The key point of the cross burning Supreme Court verdict:

"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said.

Substitute the word flag for cross and I still regard it as an attack on what I defend. ;)

[Chaerophon]

"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said.

Substitute the word flag for cross and I still regard it as an attack on what I defend. ;)

Perhaps, but whether the act may be construed as necessarily 'intimidating' and not simply 'offensive' is certainly up in the air. :) And BTW, if it's not already perfectly clear - I understand the passionate place that you're coming from in your gut response to the issue. I would suggest that about 95% of flag burners are ignorant attention whores. :D

[jahcs]

Agreed. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you.

Cheers.

[Minionman]

I stand ready to defend the ideals of this Nation.  The flag is a symbol of those ideals.  I regard an attack on the flag as an attack on those ideals.  A protest is used to gain attention for your point of view on an issue.  If your protest includes material regarded as hatefull by many folks, are you at fault?  Life is full of unintended consequences.
[right][snapback]81587[/snapback][/right]

That was one tyhing I was arguing in my first post. You may take it as an attack on your ideals, but in terms of the effects of burning a flag, it doesn't stop elections, it doesn't lead the military to take over the country, it doesn't change how arrest procedures are done, etc. If someone burns a flag and than goes back home, they haven't actually done anything to actually change some important good things about the country.

[Minionman]

I would suggest that about 95% of flag burners are ignorant attention whores. :D
[right][snapback]81591[/snapback][/right]

And this goes into the argument about "cheapening the constitution", and brings up the question of "Do you really want to make a very long term to laws that sets precedents for changing big freedoms over a small group of peopel who want attention?"

[Minionman]

Something I forgot in the beginning: I heard that some people were expecting easier passings of these types of laws thanks to the war going on, and I think something about "support the troops" was in there. I think similarly to my post on the "atention whores" about the "ssupport the troops". Sure, when the country sends the military into an area, they don't send people in and not support them with supplies and things. Howeve,r Again I say that supporting the troops for one watr is no reason to make long term changes in laws and/or constitutional changes that will last much longer than the war that's getting fought. I have other things to say about this line of arguing but that would go way beyond the flag stuff and I don't feel like starting another thread.

[Rhydderch Hael]

You know, the whole idea behind why flags were invented were simply to provide position markers to gauge the advance of a military unit on a battlefield. One may begin attaching much more sentimentality to that piece of cloth, but that piece of cloth sure isn't in the mood to appreciate your sentiments about it.

It's a position marker. Not much more than that in a practical sense. The offense of desecrating the flag is carried only within the minds and hearts of those defiling the cloth, and to whom that defilement was aimed to offend. Both those sides are so subjective to individual tastes and transitory to the circumstances that judgement by written word of law is going to be imperfect.

[Rhydderch Hael]

To poke fun at your argument: If I burn a flag because of this latest travesty by the Supreme Court it's ok.  If I burn a flag because I hate the Supreme Court's latest decision it isn't. [right][snapback]81587[/snapback][/right]

Hating the decision made is not the same as hating the Supreme Court.

If you were burning the flag that flew over the Supreme Court as a gesture to burn the whole place down, then it's hate-speech.

[whyBish]

[right][snapback]81569[/snapback][/right]

Over here it is currently illegal to burn the NZ flag, but not others.... as you can see below, this makes the law rather difficult to enforce after a certain amount of burning ;)

NZ
AUS

--edit-- Additional:

Also the definition was a bit too tight... you are free to burn plackards etc with an image of the flag on them (but no precedent set yet... anyone want to sponsor an investigation? :whistling: )

[Lady Vashj]

DID YOU KNOW THAT...

It is already illegal to burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag...in Norway? Apparently, some poor comedian found that out the hard way when he lit a candle in a mock support of the war in Iraq during a routine, and it "accidentally" set fire to a U.S. flag on the set. He was arrested shortly afterward.

How does this figure?

[jahcs]

DID YOU KNOW THAT...

It is already illegal to burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag...in Norway?  Apparently, some poor comedian found that out the hard way when he lit a candle in a mock support of the war in Iraq during a routine, and it "accidentally" set fire to a U.S. flag on the set.  He was arrested shortly afterward.

How does this figure?
[right][snapback]81766[/snapback][/right]

Is it legal to burn other flags in Norway?

[Rhydderch Hael]

DID YOU KNOW THAT...

It is already illegal to burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag...in Norway?  Apparently, some poor comedian found that out the hard way when he lit a candle in a mock support of the war in Iraq during a routine, and it "accidentally" set fire to a U.S. flag on the set.  He was arrested shortly afterward.

How does this figure?
[right][snapback]81766[/snapback][/right]

You sure it was for burning the flag, or setting something alight onstage in an unregulated/uncontrolled/OhMyGodI'mBetterThanGreatWhite! manner?

[Lady Vashj]

Is it legal to burn other flags in Norway?
[right][snapback]81767[/snapback][/right]

No. Norway's legal code prohibits the insulting of any foreign flag, whether by burning it, using it as toilet paper, or walking up to it and telling it that blue is just not its color. I don't know if this covers the Norwegian flag as well.

So, Rhydderch (God, your name is impossible to spell), I think this answers your question too. If it had been a picture of President Bush that was set on fire, or his own couch, I seriously doubt he would have been arrested.

[Nystul]

When I was in high school I attended Buckeye Boys State. For those who aren't familiar with Boys State, it is a simulation of state, county, and local government by high school students, sponsored by the American Legion. This would have been about 1995: Newt Gingrich, Contract With America, first Republican-controlled Congress in 50 years. One of the keynote speeches addressed the importance of the proposed amendment to protect the U.S. flag. This is an idea that was very popular amongst the veterans at that time, and I am sure it probably still is.

Really, if some American hates the principles of his country enough to burn the flag, he ought to put actions behind his symbolism and move somewhere else. But, whatever. The great thing about freedom of speech is that when someone does make a gesture as disrespectful as this, you can walk up to him, flip him the bird, and cuss him out. That's good enough for me.

[jahcs]

Really, if some American hates the principles of his country enough to burn the flag, he ought to put actions behind his symbolism and move somewhere else.  But, whatever.  The great thing about freedom of speech is that when someone does make a gesture as disrespectful as this, you can walk up to him, flip him the bird, and cuss him out.  That's good enough for me.
[right][snapback]82058[/snapback][/right]

Yup, that's one reason why I can be so vehemently against burning the flag and still not support a Constitutional Amendment. This type of material just doesn't belong in our government's framework document.

[Ashock]

Really, if some American hates the principles of his country enough to burn the flag, he ought to put actions behind his symbolism and move somewhere else.  But, whatever.  The great thing about freedom of speech is that when someone does make a gesture as disrespectful as this, you can walk up to him, flip him the bird, and cuss him out.  That's good enough for me.
[right][snapback]82058[/snapback][/right]

You can usually cuss someone out and flip them the bird no matter what country you're in, not just the ones that enjoy freedom of speech. It's the other stuff that you can't do that separates us from them.

-A