Flag Desecration

[TheBigDog]

No problems Zyth. :eek2:

 

I guess it comes down to where I see the boudaries of "speech". If a person wished to yell about the evil of America, they are welcome to do so. And to me speech is the domain of words, written and spoken. There is no recognized language that requires the ingition of a countries flag to make a statement that could not otherwise be made with words. Freedom of speech is not freedom of action. By that distinction of definition I may draw the line differently than other people do.

 

As for Turtle :hyper: 30 lashes with a wet noodle! I don't believe it is anyone's intention of throwing people in jail for leaving the flag out after dusk or other such nonsense. And such a suggestion is simply to inflame. :) But with the flying of a flag comes the responsibility of doing so in the prescribed manner. And a friendly reminder of the rules would be forthcoming for the inadvertant breach of the code. If that. We are not talking about having zero tolerance laws put into place. Leaving a flag out in the rain is not the same as groping a child. But as it stands today we cannot even have that discussion because of the Supreme Court ruling.

 

Bill

[Turtle]

As for Turtle :hyper: 30 lashes with a wet noodle! I don't believe it is anyone's intention of throwing people in jail for leaving the flag out after dusk or other such nonsense. And such a suggestion is simply to inflame. :) But with the flying of a flag comes the responsibility of doing so in the prescribed manner. And a friendly reminder of the rules would be forthcoming for the inadvertant breach of the code. If that. We are not talking about having zero tolerance laws put into place. Leaving a flag out in the rain is not the same as groping a child. But as it stands today we cannot even have that discussion because of the Supreme Court ruling.

 

Bill

 

I'll take that 30 & raise you 50. I only regret that I have but one back to give for my country. It is MY intention to support throwing people in jail if the law says to, & my intention as well to exercise my right under the law to make the law(s). As you pointed out earlier, the flag rules used to be law. Either enforce the law or don't have it.

Burning anything in a public gathering ought to fall under existing laws such as 'public burning' or 'public endangerment' or 'reckless endangerment'.

I note the Supreme Court ruling has not put the kabosh on our discussion here.

Gotta say again how ironic that the rules (old laws) prescribe burning as the "proper" method of destroying a flag.

 

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[TheBigDog]

I'll take that 30 & raise you 50. I only regret that I have but one back to give for my country. It is MY intention to support throwing people in jail if the law says to, & my intention as well to exercise my right under the law to make the law(s). As you pointed out earlier, the flag rules used to be law. Either enforce the law or don't have it.

Burning anything in a public gathering ought to fall under existing laws such as 'public burning' or 'public endangerment' or 'reckless endangerment'.

I note the Supreme Court ruling has not put the kabosh on our discussion here.

Gotta say again how ironic that the rules (old laws) prescribe burning as the "proper" method of destroying a flag.

 

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you suggesting that all laws should result in jail time or nothing? What is wrong with a misdemeanor for flag vanalism? A $50 fine?

 

I see nothing specific in that amendment about flag vandalism. That is not speech.

 

• address: the act of delivering a formal spoken communication to an audience; "he listened to an address on minor Roman poets"
  
• (language) communication by word of mouth; "his speech was garbled"; "he uttered harsh language"; "he recorded the spoken language of the streets"
  
• something spoken; "he could hear them uttering merry speeches"
  
• the exchange of spoken words; "they were perfectly comfortable together without speech"
  
• manner of speaking: your characteristic style or manner of expressing yourself orally; "his manner of speaking was quite abrupt"; "her speech was barren of southernisms"; "I detected a slight accent in his speech"
  
• lecture: a lengthy rebuke; "a good lecture was my father's idea of discipline"; "the teacher gave him a talking to"
  
• actor's line: words making up the dialogue of a play; "the actor forgot his speech"
  
• language: the mental faculty or power of vocal communication; "language sets homo sapiens apart from all other animals"
  

 

Is it beer time yet Turtle? It's micro-brewed... :) :hyper:

 

Bill

[Turtle]

Are you suggesting that all laws should result in jail time or nothing? What is wrong with a misdemeanor for flag vanalism? A $50 fine?

 

I see nothing specific in that amendment about flag vandalism. That is not speech.

 

Is it beer time yet Turtle? It's micro-brewed... :hyper: :eek2:

 

Bill

 

LOL Won't be beer time for me 'till next month's check; this is a coffee powered discourse.:eek2:

I do not suggest all laws need jail no; I was engaging in some hyperbole to make my point. Do keep in mind this was not just any law being proposed, but a change to the US Constitution. I also point out that the folks who keep bringing this to Congress are doing so on christian moral arguments, which is another Constitutional infringement.

The Supreme Court ruled it IS a Free Speech argument so that is now the law until or if we agree to change it.

Finally, and again, why isn't Congress working on real issues like Social Security, immigration, health care, war in Iraq, etc.? How many have died unnecessarily in the last 2 days because of these issues put on hold to debate such a ridiculous law? More than died from a flag burning incident I'll wager.:)

[Jay-qu]

to put this another way, a law isnt going to make people respect their country. All the law would do is possibly silence them from saying they dont respect the country..

[CraigD]

If I could select a class of flag desecrations most deserving prosecution, it would have to be little flags flown 24/7 in all weather on stubby plastic standards attached to car windows and bumpers. There’s little more offensive on more levels to me than one of those car flags, reduced by the wind blast of high speed driving to a thin, faded, barely recognizable strip of blue, white and red.

 

Next on my list would be advertisers who flaunt the still-in-force public law banning the use of the American flag in advertisements. For example, the vendor of this handy LCD badge extols you to “Imagine mailing this badge out to your customers with a custom advertisement or appreciation message!”

 

And, of course, let us not forget political adds that imprint, incorporate, and otherwise make prohibited use of the flag.

 

The perception of what constitutes adequate respect for the American flag appears to change significantly over time. It’s interesting to note, however, that the religiously loaded term “desecration” did not appear in the 1924/1942 Flag Code, but rather appears for the first time in the 1989 Flag Protection Act.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I see nothing specific in that amendment about flag vandalism. That is not speech.

 

Not a good idea. Then no symbolic act counts as "speech." The first amendment has almost universally been interpreted as a the right to free expression.

 

Otherwise here are something things that wouldn't fall under "speech"

- paintings.

- picket signs

- advertising

 

So I think that saying that the symbolic act of burning the flag shouldn't be protected under a narrow definition of "speech" is silly. Too many other things would also be illegal.

 

TFS

[Buffy]

Freedom of speech is not free because others are free to freely express their opposing opinions. This issue is *government* mandating restrictions on speech. To the extent that speech can infringe on the rights of others or cause them harm (e.g. the cannonical "yell fire in the crowded theater"), there is *some* argument for *some* restriction.

 

However the best way to limit "offensive" speech is free speech: the deleterious consequences of unrestrained speech--especially in cases where the *intent* is to cause pain or harm--will be met with a strong and uncomfortable responses. It is a self-regulating system!

 

Flag burning is a strong statement and some can be offended by it, but in fact, burning a flag will make you a social pariah, which most people will avoid. This is exactly why flag burning is not a popular activity.

 

My biggest concern is when leaders of our society say like Sen. Orrin Hatch said yesterday "I was asked this afternoon by a large body of media: Is this the most important thing the Senate could be doing at this time? I can tell you: You’re darned right it is." It is? Are you....suuuuurrre?

 

Scary....

 

Getting priorities straight,

Buffy

[C1ay]

You cannot legislate respect or integrity, let freedom reign....

[TheFaithfulStone]

It is? Are you....suuuuurrre?

 

Is that your final answer?

 

You don't want to call a friend?

 

Maybe poll the audience?

 

TFS

[Buffy]

Maybe poll the audience?

Gosh, don't poll the audience! They'll just disagree with you! They've all been deluded by the mesmerizing grip of the monolithic liberal/commie media!

 

Reality-based,

Buffy

[Turtle]

My biggest concern is when leaders of our society say like Sen. Orrin Hatch said yesterday "I was asked this afternoon by a large body of media: Is this the most important thing the Senate could be doing at this time? I can tell you: You’re darned right it is." It is? Are you....suuuuurrre?

 

Scary....

 

Getting priorities straight,

Buffy

I listened to that too...chilling. No less so some of the speeches on the Senate floor before the vote.

Not getting what I voted for,

Turtler

[Stargazer]

It should not be illegal, or if it should be illegal, the punishment should be symbolic only. I see it as a way to express one's opinions. One interesting thing is that I've been told that the Swedish flag can't be raised after sunset, and that it should never touch the ground. I don't know for sure if it's true.

[ForensicsGuy]

Freedom of speech is always limited. Besides the fire in a crowd example, a school teacher can not teach intelligent design as another possible theory to evolution. There is no fear of causing harm to the people in the classroom. There is instead the fear of hurting the feelings of any children who's parents are atheists. In that case, the rights of the few are more important than the wishes of the majority.

 

The question of flag burning really comes down to a vote on it. If 51% of the United States wants flag burning to be illegal, then it can never be illegal because it would be oppressive to the minority of people who want to burn flags.

 

Remember, in this country it's minority rules now ;)

[CraigD]

If 51% of the United States wants flag burning to be illegal, then it can never be illegal because it would be oppressive to the minority of people who want to burn flags.

 

Remember, in this country it's minority rules now

This claim seem jingoistic, and can easily be show to be false.

 

A large majority of US citizens strongly believe that sexual intercourse with young children should be illegal. A small minority – at least the about 300 members of NAMBLA, disagree, and consider themselves to be an oppressed minority. None the less, sexual intercourse with children under 12 years old by anyone under any circumstances remains illegal in every state, and is illegal in most states under most circumstances for children under 16 or 18.

 

Many other examples can be found. In general, public law can only prohibit speech or other public expression that “hurts the feelings” of an group of people when those feelings constitute a “community standard”. This reasoning allows laws against such acts as public nudity, even when the act may be an act of political expression, and can not be legally prohibited from being represented in print or other non-public form.

 

Also note that, although “flag burning” is a popular, inflammatory term for flag desecration, that no prior US statute makes it illegal to dispose of a soiled or damaged flag by burning. On the other hand, the US Flag Code prohibits many common recent practices, such as displaying the flag inverted, or attached to a car other than to the chassis or right fender, or at night unless illuminated. Although the first of the practices could reasonably be considered protected speech under the First Amendment, and thus exempt from the code per the 1989 SCOTUS ruling on Texas v. Johnson, it would be difficult to argue that being too lazy to remove a flag from ones car after nightfall is an act of speech deserving equivalent protection.

[paigetheoracle]

I'm into Zen Buddhism, so a flag is just a rag to me (Patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel: Dr Johnston)