Flag Burning

And, oh, yeah, send them old flags we own instead to the Ayrabs and let them burn those flags to their hearts' content.
And for those Americans with children who at an early stage have signified a desire to go into business, why, suggest maybe that a toilet paper with a US flag motif will sell like hot cakes ?
Personally, to me, the US Flag represents Americans who gave their lives in battle for whatever reason, one of which is so my family and I can live under its protection.
I cherish the US Flag, just as I respect the Confederate flag that I bought in a store in PA because it represents Southerners who died fighting against those who will invade them and force their will on them.

 

Pinoy, you are missing the point. The flag IS the symbol of freedom, it does bring pride to Americans. However, the point is that it is not freedom itself, but a symbol, a visual representation of our nation, her people, and our liberty. To take away liberty is no way to defend it. Like I have always said, it is not popular expression that needs protection by the First Amendment. It is expression that is unpopular. But unless unpopular speech is protected, who is to say when YOUR speech may become unpopular. Unless all have freedom, none do.

As for flag burning being free speech, it may not be verbal speech, but it is a way to express an idea. That expression is a form of protected speech. Hence the desire by some for a constitutional amendment. Any law without such an amendment violates the First Amendment and would be unconstitutional.

Given the SCOTUS activism yesterday in violating the Fourth Amendment, I am not so sure the Constitution means much to most people anyway. So sad.

 

Hitting someone is not speech has never has been considered such. It is assault.

I think you know that "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

 

So, is it OK if I open a strip club next to your house? That has been determined to be "speech" as well.

Oh, and several of us here took an oath a while back to defend our nation, and that's one of the symbols of our nation. Permitting it to be denigrated in such a way, weakens our nation. There are all sorts of limits on "free speech", including (but not limited to) slander, libel, treason, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

 

Actually, it strengthens our nation. We don't want to go down the road of fascism or communism where political protest is disallowed.

 

Opening a business isn't really free speech, you know. But you're welcome to come and strip next to my house if you feel very strongly about it.

No, it doesn't; as KenH said, it strengthens it.

Libel and slander aren't criminal, but they may be subject to civil action if damage can be proven. Real treason (not that phoney-baloney rightie accusation of anyone who disagrees with them) and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are criminal because they endanger public safety. As so many righties are fond of saying, you don't have the right not to be offended.

 

Reasonable people would admit that burning an object, any object, is conduct, not speech.

Polls consistantly show that most Americans think the flag is a unique symbol that deserves special status, and favor allowing Congress to protect the flag.

 

Caption on a tee shirt bearing the image of the US flag:

DON'T BURN ME UP!
-----------------
BTW, the cross is also a symbol. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there ordinances that prohibit the burning of crosses?

 

Good point

 

Well, if burning a flag is "speech", isn't burning a cross also "speech"?

 

If a cross is someone's personal property, then he is certainly free to burn it as far as I am concerned - as long as he does on his property or the property of someone who willfully allows him to do so.

 

Yes.

However, if you burn it on someone else's lawn, that is a threat. You can burn them on your own lawn, depending on local fire regulations.

 

That's why I'm glad that I live in a constitutional republic and not a simple democracy.

In a simple democracy the majority might decide that a person posting using an ID such as "NiteShift" should be flogged with a wet noodle.

 

Fire regulations remain valid, but if otherwise legal you may make a 'statement' by burning an American flag, a Mexicon flag, an Israeli flag, a cross, a war bonnet, a life-size picture of Martin Luther King, a life-like model of a baby seal..........

You can exercise free expression in these way, but-- where may the crime (at least prosecuted as such in the past) of inciting a riot come in? Burning any of these things could reasonably, at least under some circumstanes, be so construed.

BTW there has been no answer to my previous questions about the "sacred" issue-- are the penalties the same for stealing and burning the original Constitution of Declaration of Independence, as for any copy thereof? as the words are almost impossible to be lost with thousands of copies.

 

The original DofI is probably protected under some historic monument legislation would be my guess. Probably the same if there is an original flag.

If so, this particular flag would be protected not because it is a U.S. flag but because of its historicity.

 

And what is your word "historiocity" a euphemism for?

 

The original.

 

And what makes the "original" intrinsicially more valuable than copies? Would the text be lost? Can no further copies be produced without the original? Is the original being venerated?

 

Oh no! Not the baby seals!!!

Hi Alcott, how have you been? :wavey:

I don't think that inciting a riot is appropriate unless you're positively urging others to violence, but there is always the good ole "disturbing the peace".

As KenH said, it's not that it's sacred, but that it is unique and has great monetary and historical significance. That flag in the Smithsonian would be the same.

The antiflag-burners don't just want to protect a specific instance of a flag but nonunique copies of it as well.