On the topic of flag burning

[wsmith]

Since it seems to be the topic of the moment, I might as well put in my two cents. Before I launch into my little diatribe, I'd like to state that I am uncategorically against any amendment prohibiting the burning of our flag, the flag of any other country, or any other piece of cloth. That being said, I consider myself a patriot (rather than a nationalist which seems to be the recent trend) and have no wish to burn a United States flag, but would do so if I felt it were necessary. "Under what conditions might it be necessary for a patriot to burn a flag?" you ask. I'll tell you. It would be necessary if I felt that by doing so I would risk imprisonment. Yes, burning a flag is offensive. It is offensive to the citizenry and offensive to the government. That is the point. It is my essential right under the constitution to say (and by extension, do) things that are offensive without risk of legal reprisals. It would be necessary to burn a flag to show those around me that their essential rights under the constitution have been legislated out of existence.

It's very easy to say that you support the concept of freedom of speech as long as no one is saying anything offensive. The hard part is sticking to your ideals when someone has something to say or do that is entirely offensive to you. That's when your strength of character is tested and the durability of your ethical fiber shows through. If you believe in freedom of speech but don't think that people should be able to say what they want or do what they want with whatever symbolic thing that they want, then you don't really believe in free speech. The instant a person is not allowed to say what they wish, their speech is no longer free, just mostly unregulated. The first amendment to the constitution does not call for "mostly unregulated speech."

When a law is passed that limits the people's civil rights, it is not obvious until someone crosses the line made by the new law. If we passed a bill outlawing the use of the word "hafftenshlofenlingentotendonberriculous" (which I just made up, by the way) no one would really notice that it had been outlawed because people don't have occasion to say that word. If such a law were passed, I believe that it would be my duty as a member of this society and as a citizen of this nation to say that word as often and as loudly as I could until I was arrested for it. Burning flags is the same sort of thing. It needs to be done if only to make certain that our right to do so is intact. We are not a society that was founded on bowing its head to oppressive laws nor buckling under tyanny. I believe that we have a duty to ensure that our rights are maintained. If a law outlawing the burning of flags passed, I would make the sacrifice that needed to be made to ensure the ideals for which this country stands were maintained. I would be out there burning a flag. Anything less would be unamerican.

Comments

[popetom.livejournal.com]

It's also important to recognize the difference between a law against burning a flag and an amendment.

If a law is past against burning a flag a person can burn a flag to get arrested and then take the civil liberty case to the Supreme Court where, most likely, the law will be found unconstitutional.

But...

If an amendment is some how successfully passed to make flag burning illegal the same process will not work. By the very nature of the 'law' now being an amendment to the constitution it can not be found to be unconstitutional.

The thing that's even worse is that the attempt to pass this amendment is less that the politicians really care about people burning flags or not, they are just grand standing in the homes of garnering more votes come this November.

-PT

[wsmith.livejournal.com]

That's absolutely true. I find it rather alarming how willing our leaders are to casually ammend the constitution. I remember how big a deal it was when ERA was proposed. OMG! Amend the Consttitution? ZOMG!

Now it just seems to be considered a way to pass an ironclad law.

[anechoic.livejournal.com]

I would be out there burning a flag. Anything less would be unamerican.

And I'll be there too, with a windproof zippo and a bottle of Ronsonol, just in case...

[industrialsteve.livejournal.com]

accually you are supposed to burn a flag if it touches the ground. ( they are also supposed to be blessed when purchased) granted not while waving it in the air, but it is how you are supposed to dispose of a flag.

[wsmith.livejournal.com]

Shhh. Don't tell congress.

[3diff.livejournal.com]

Note that this amendment only gives the Congress the authority to prohibit flag-burning; the amendment itself does not prohibit it. Presumably when Congress passed a law outlawing flag burning, they would include an exception for the disposal of worn-out flags, with limits on how this could be done.

[wsmith.livejournal.com]

So it doesn't take unconstitutional actions. Rather it empowers the Congress power to take unconstitutional action.

[sirendipity.livejournal.com]

So, is it safe to assume, then, that you also defend the right of the Dutch newspaper to publish that cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed a few months back?

[wsmith.livejournal.com]

Absolutely and without reservation. I don't agree with their message, but they are a private paper and perfectly within their rights printing whatever they like. If their readers don't like it, they can make their opinions known with their checkbooks but not buying or subscribing.

[sirendipity.livejournal.com]

ok. just checkin' ;)

[(Anonymous)]

Burning the flag is like spitting in the face of those who died for this country. If you ever feel like burning a flag, why not wrap yourself in it first? Or, better yet, move out of this country if you are that disrespectful. I know you can come back at me with some schlock about how it's just a piece of cloth, and how "civil liberties" are more important, but I don't care about that crap. I am very very THANKFUL to live in this country, and I would never disrespect it by burning it's flag.

Think about how utterly hypocritical it is to burn our flag, while standing in this free nation. Evidently, you've never lived in a poor third world country.

An old friend of mine was a cab driver in NYC. He was an immigrant from the middle east. He told me that when he got here, he kissed the ground at JFK airport. He knows what freedom is, and he knows the hard way.

Burning the flag is REPUGNANT, especially if you are a citizen. People who do this are scumbags, and deserve to be arrested for shitting on our country.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

While I think you are extremist (and cowardly to write anonymously), I think that wsmith understands what you say.

Free speech does not mean only pleasant or desired speech, it does not mean only speech any particular leader finds friendly or welcome. It is the right, and the duty, to express differences (even repungant ones) through peaceful and expressive means - lest we have to resort to violence or bad behavior against each others persons or property.

One of the magical parts of the Constitution, it seems to me, is how it anticipates the need to handle difference in non-violent and expressive ways.

Burning a flag is offensive. It is supposed to be. It is repugnant, and that is important to its nature. It is a form of odious expression. I do not wish to express that odious message - and I would not. Unless my government reduced our means of expressions.

[wsmith.livejournal.com]

Spoken like a true nationalist. It's that sort of blind obedience and adherence to dogmatic ideas that keeps despots in power. I'm guessing you didn't read the content of my post very closely. If you had you would have seen that I am very pleased to live here and stand strongly for the ideals for which our country stands. If you're not for civil rights, then you may live here but you're far from being an American.

Oh, by the way Mr. 64.222.56.28, I find it interesting that you don't have enough confidence in your convictions to post without the artificial veil of anonymity. If you're going to give me the old "love it or leave it, pinko scum" speech, at least have the courage that the last generation did and claim the words as your own.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd also like to add that burning the flag is sinking to the level of terrorists who seek to destroy this country.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

If you really think that, you don't understand much.

[3diff.livejournal.com]

I think this sort of thinking - confusing the symbol and the thing itself - is a classic example of "magical thinking" - it is why people believe in voodoo, for instance. Symbols do become very powerfully connected in our minds with the things they stand for, and therefore when we see the flag being burned, on some level, we do see it as an attack on our country. But, we should remember that this is not true; voodoo does not work, the symbol is not the thing itself, and the real attack on the flag is only a symbolic attack.
Flag veneration is especially strong in the US; one theory is that because the US does not have a king or other symbolic, non-partisan leader, the focus is instead on the flag.
I would not support this amendment because it will lead to infringements on free speech, and because it is a triviality.

[wsmith.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me like just about anything said that doesn't line up with your ideas on nationalism would amount to "sinking to the level of the terrorists." Perhaps you should work to get a better sense of perspective and learn to take part in the debate that is essential to a democratic society.

[anechoic.livejournal.com]

If we engage in rational debate, then the terrorists win!

[robdamnit.livejournal.com]

It would appear that you are just the sort of simplistic oaf whose little minds are being used to pave this once great nation's road to hell.