Flame war: Flag (American Centric)

[I.D.10-t]

Please keep it civilized.

Con

I invite others to post a pro article.

I personally think if it passes, then it is not worth the cloth it was made from.

[s1m0n]

How can it not be a form of speech, and hence a right protected under the US constitution?

If flags aren't symbols, then there's no reason to care one way or another about destroying them--it's just a piece of cloth.

If flags ARE symbols, then destroying one is a symbolic act; in other words, speech. Freedom of speech is a right guarranteed under the constitution.

~~

Any law relating to the destruction of flags is, hence, an assualt upon the the US constitution--an act far more damaging to the nation than the loss of any number of flags.

[susnfx]

I agree, Simon. I believe it's a form of speech and shouldn't be illegal. I've got great respect for the flag and can get as teary-eyed as any conservative at certain times of flag-waving, but I'm not bothered by anybody burning the flag. It's just an expression of anger or frustration or (in the case of some outside the US) hatred and to me isn't any worse than shouting negative stuff about the USA.

Susan

[ChrisA]

s1m0n, that's why it requires an amendment of the constitution to make it unlawful. The supreme court has held up mutilation of the flag as a form of speech. So the proposal, as I understand it, is to explicitly amend the first amendment.

I find that 'con' article very strange, though perhaps the religious argument will appeal to those most likely to favor the amendment.

I think the obvious con argument is that constitutional amendments to explicitly revoke rights are an inherently bad idea. The more limited, the better, and this -seems- pretty limited at first glance, but even so. What if one were to make a movie about the sixties? Would it then be illegal to recreate any of several well-known flag-burning events? What if one were to make a movie wherein a U.S. fort is ravaged and the American flag dramatically descends into the flames to emphasize the total destruction of said fort... is that illegal? Will there be a movie exception? For only the patriotic movie, or for both movies?

If we create an artistic exception, then we can always stage an artistic event (a 'recreation' or a 'drama' of some sort) during a political rally, thereby gaining a backdoor into the forbidden expression. If we do not create an artistic exception, then we genuinely forbid creative expression. Either way, we are genuinely forbidding a form of -political- expression, but that is the intent of the amendment. I don't believe forbidding artistic expression is intended.

It seems to me like a road better not trod. There's no obvious benefit to the citizenry to prohibit flag mutilation, and there is obvious harm to freedom of expression.

[Jack]

The flag really is a god to some people. And it's mostly people who claim to be Christians. It's strange how so many people can pledge their allegiance to a flag, to a government. Personally, it feels wrong for me to do that. I pledge my allegiance to God and only to God. That's not to say I don't respect the laws of the state, I do. But to pledge my absolute allegiance to a flag (and thus the government which it represents) is very scarey to me.

[s1m0n]

So what, exactly, is the harm that would befall the nation should flag-burning remain legal for a second longer?

[Denny]

So what, exactly, is the harm that would befall the nation should flag-burning remain legal for a second longer?

Sell more flags?

[Lorenzo]

For those of you who think it's okay to burn copies of the original flag, as a protest or an expression...what about this: what would be wrong with burning either of the original flags - the Betsy Ross, or the one made for John Paul Jones, who hoisted it on his ship, the Ranger?

And for those who are against burning flags, do you think it would be wrong to burn tiny cheap plastic copies of the flag as a protest or expression? Where would you draw the line then?

BTW, when the gov't retires old wornout flags, they have a burning ceremony. Guards carefully and respectfully unfold each one and toss it on a fire.

[Wormdiet]

For those of you who think it's okay to burn copies of the original flag, as a protest or an expression...what about this: what would be wrong with burning either of the original flags - the Betsy Ross, or the one made for John Paul Jones, who hoisted it on his ship, the Ranger?

Those particular objects are obviously historical artifacts of great importance. More to the point, I assume someone owns them and burning those *is* illegal because mutilating someone else's property is illegal. And, because of the historical relevance, such an act would be collossally stupid.

But in general, I'm totally opposed to the flag burning amendment. Seems to be a fairly cut/dried case of political expression being protected by the First amendment.

The values symbolized by the flag (Right to free speech being perhaps the most important!) are worth far, far more than any particular piece of cloth.

[Walden]

Seems to be a fairly cut/dried case of political expression being protected by the First amendment.

The values symbolized by the flag (Right to free speech being perhaps the most important!) are worth far, far more than any particular piece of cloth.

I agree.

[Wormdiet]

The other consideration - where does the law draw the line? The minute the amendment was passed, every underwear designer in the world would make a nearly flag-like pattern sets of briefs and boxers. WHo gets to inspect nearly flag like obhjects to see if they are protected or not?

[Lorenzo]

Good point, Wormdiet. I think the gov't might own them though...which would make them public property. But if either came up for sale, and a person bought one, it would only stand to reason that burning the originals would only mean the contempt for the gov't was all that much deeper.

For us regular citizens of the US, I think there really is no right or wrong on the issue. It's whatever the highest authority of gov't says is right or wrong. And in that case, conscience and personal opinion have nothing to do with it. The mystery is why some people would vote one way and others vote the other way.

[GaryKelly]

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2005/0 ... edure.html

Shares in US Flags Inc. — a Florida-based manufacturer of US flags which employs around 50 manual workers of Hispanic origin — rose 32 per cent at the news that top Islamicists has rejected the Newsweek retraction. VP in Charge of Export (Middle East), Deron Stonewall III, told The Rockall Times: "We're doing a brisk trade with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria at the moment. The US flag has never been so popular."

[I.D.10-t]

For good measure, these are the rules for flag display.
http://www.jamestownpa.com/VFW/USFlag/FlagCode.htm

...and CNN

[izzarina]

What bothers ME about this whole thing is that the people who worship the American flag and want to make it a crime to burn it are the same people (well, not ALL of them, of course, but many of them) driving around in their cars with those little flags attached to the window, waving around in the wind. Apparently it doesn't matter if it's tattered and torn up, and a huge disgrace, because THEY are patriotic for having it on their car. Or also, people who have the American flag hanging on their house or on a flag pole in the same condition....it's not taken down in bad weather, and there is no light on it at night. That apparently doesn't matter. Grrr.....I'm sick of being told that I'M unpatriotic because I feel that the burning of an American flag is legitimately freedom of speech, and yet many of these people don't even care about the state of their flags that they have waving in the breeze.
There, thus concludeth my rant for the day