Burning the flag is illegal: a constitutional amendment by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Can they find more ways to piss away money and time?

Weldon putting the Congress on note that he didn't snub O'Reilly is a pretty good indication that they can and they will.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:00 PM

ROCKETJOCK

If such an amendment is ever passsed, I have sworn to immediately start a company that produces flags with forty-nine stars and twelve stripes. Since there has never been such a flag, it can't be illegal to burn it. Perhaps I'll design them with a built-in ignition strip.

Another question: If I take a photograph of an American flag, and then burn that, is it still a crime? Would it matter if I blew it up to life size? What if it was a black-and-white print? How about thirteen stripes, but a star field containing just one big star... What about the "Don't tread on me" rattlesnake flag? Does it count? It is a national ensign of some description...

I served eight years in the Navy for the sake of what that flag stands for. And that includes the freedom of a symbolic act that destroys a physical shell. Better that, than destroying the freedom that (wonderful, beautiful) piece of cloth symbolizes.

"Our problem was that burning the flag was the wrong message. We should have washed it." -- Abbie Hoffman

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:25 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Check out this site

http://www.esquilax.com/flag/index2.html

And don't fret... You can always come North...

Perhaps there is some tourism dollars to be made in Canada by hosting US Flag burning events.

I can picture it now, a huge BBQ / Concert

I wonder if I could book the Blue Oyster Cult

Burn out the day
Burn out the night
I can't see no reason to put up a fight
I'm living for giving the devil his due

And I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you
I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:30 PM

THENEWESTFIREFLYFANATIC

Actually the proper way to dispose of an American flag is to have it quartered (cut into 4 equal parts) and THEN burned...just to let y'all know.

Oh and by the way this is my first post here ever.

BRING BACK FIREFLY!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:39 PM

CHRISISALL

I guess the next step is to ban movies in which the flag is treated badly.
Oops! The flag fell to the ground when Zod attacked the White House; no more Superman II!
And you can totally forget Independence Day, the flag was flyin' when the White House blew up!
This is ridiculous.

Our flag is a symbol of freedom and justice and the constant challenge to be the best America we can be. It doesn't need an amendment to 'protect' it. It's stronger than that.

Spidey threw his costume in a trash can, did that destroy the hero?
Okay, maybe it's a trite pop-culture reference, but you get my point.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:56 PM

Of course, if we did burn the flag, then it might offend someone, and we know we can’t have that.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 4:07 PM

I guess my question would be...why would you want to burn an American flag in a disrespectful manner in the first place (If you're an American)?

My thing about flag burning is this: It's not protesting the government or the current administration...it's protesting America and the ideals that she stands for, regardless of the current administration. When someone disrespectfully burns a flag, I see it as them saying "I hate America. I hate everything this nation stands for. I want to destroy the United States." I don't see it as "I disagree with this administration's policies". The flag is bigger than any political party. The flag represents all that is good about America. When you destroy it, you're saying that you don't like the good things that America stands/has stood for.

IMO, protesters would gain a lot of credibility if they held the flag up high as the marched, as if to say, "I don't agree with what the government is doing now...I don't think it represents what America really is. I think my ideals better represent the true spirit of America." When protesters burn the flag and dance around it or what-not, it completely undermines their credibility. They aren't saying that the current administration is bad...they're saying that America itself is bad.

As an American, I can never forsee a situation where I would become so disgusted with this nation that I would destroy a flag in that manner. If I ever got that angry, it would be more fitting and respectful to just leave the country.

I don't think that making it a crime to disrespect the flag violates free speech. You can still say everything that you wanted to say...you just can't do it by burning the flag. You could write a letter to your congressmen, post an essay on a website, organize a protest and start chanting. True infringement on freedom of speech would be something that prohibited people from speaking out against the government at all, like in Cuba or China. As the son of a man who escaped Castro's regime, I believe I can safely say that this flag-burning thing is really just a trivial matter that in no way imperils freedom of speech.

I think that there are much more pressing issues than flag burning, like the Supreme Court decision today that drastically increased the power of "Eminent Domain". Now, a city government can take your land and give it to a private organization (like Wal-Mart) for "economic development". It used to be that they could only do that for direct public use, like a park or something. This is far more dangerous to individual rights than any amendment banning flag burning.

Back to flag-burning now. I don't actually think that we need a Constitutional Amendment to deal with flag burning. Couldn't current hate-speech legislation apply to this situation? As much as I hate hate-speech laws, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And, after all, it's illegal to say "I'm going to kill the President". To me, it's far more hateful and just as threatening to burn a flag. Presidents come and go...the values that America stands for, and the flag represents, will last for as long as there are people yearning to be free.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Back to flag-burning now. I don't actually think that we need a Constitutional Amendment to deal with flag burning. Couldn't current hate-speech legislation could apply to this situation? As much as I hate hate-speech laws, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And, after all, it's illegal to say "I'm going to kill the President". To me, it's far more hateful and just as threatening to burn a flag. Presidents come and go...the values that America stands for, and the flag represents, will last for as long as there are people yearning to be free.

Yep. That’s how I see it too. If you’re going to have “hate speech,” it should be applied fairly. People who burn the flag should be prosecuted under “hate speech” laws.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 6:44 PM

WORKEROFEVIL

My problem with the amendment is that it's stupid. I can't recall American flags being burned in the US recently. They did it before in the hopes of bringing attention to their cause with such a dramatic act. However, protestors seem to have learned that all it does is draw attention to the burning and their issues are ignored. It's been pretty much discarded as a viable protest here. They still burn it in other countries, but our amendment won't stop that.
Plus, it's not a flag burning amendment, it's a flag desecration amendment. But the rules that govern the proper use and respect for the flag also say that it can't be worn on clothing, touch the ground, be flown in the rain, or at night unless properly lit. This means anybody who did any of those things would be violating the constitution. Imagine that. You buy a shirt that says "I love the USA!" which has the flag printed on it. You're a patriot. You love your country and want to show everyone how you feel. A cop sees you and now you have to spend 5 years in federal prison. Brilliant amendment. Congress is stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:21 PM

Quote:
I can't recall American flags being burned in the US recently.

Here's a brief list I found of flag desecrations, mostly burnings, from 1989-2003. It's from some pro-amendment website. Now, I'm not arguing for an amendment (As I said above), but flag burning isn't uncommon.

http://www.cfa-inc.org/issues/burnings.htm

True story now...when I was in high school, I had a flag that was desecrated. I lived away from home at a boarding school, and had a flag displayed in my dorm-room window (which, by the way, I was forced to take down because some people on campus found it "offensive". It was just a plain American flag!) So I hung it on my wall instead. One day, I had left my dorm room unlocked while I was down the hall chilling in someone elses room. Anyway, another guy who lived in the building went into my room, took the flag down off of my wall, and started cutting the stars off. I caught him in the act while I was going back to my room. Needless to say, I was not amused. So, I grabbed him by the throat and rammed his head through the wall. (It was cheap drywall-stuff) He was fine...just a little unconscious. I don't think he had a concussion...Anyway, I ended up having to go to anger management for the last two years of high school. But, he never messed with me again, and he bought me a new flag, so it all worked out.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:50 PM

This will go nowhere, like it always does. Just some representatives looking for attention.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:04 PM

R1Z

"My thing about flag burning is this: It's not protesting the government or the current administration...it's protesting America and the ideals that she stands for, regardless of the current administration. When someone disrespectfully burns a flag, I see it as them saying "I hate America. I hate everything this nation stands for."

The key is in your statement: "I see it as . . ."

You see what you see. Absent an articulated intent, you are making an assumption based on little or no data. If I choose to burn a flag to demonstrate my disrespect for Tom Delay and his fundraising tactics, then what you are "hearing" is not originating in what I'm "saying".

This is why our founding father added the first amendment, to permit all of our expressions: standing on a soapbox orating to total strangers, marching in a circle carrying a sign, or burning or urinating on our flag.

Unless you can categorically say that EVERYTHING in this country is perfect, (NO innocent people jailed ever, complete equity in taxation, never got a ticket when you weren't speeding) and will ALWAYS be so, perhaps we'd better keep our options open with regard to expressing our displeasure. You never know when we're going to need them.

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:25 PM

Who remembers the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa (in a dream) is going to marry the British guy? He turns up at their house and through a series of unfortunate events, they display a burning British flag, stamp on it then cover it with manure. As a Brit, I laughed myself stupid. However, under the new constitution, if they did the same exact joke but with the American flag, the network, the writers and the producers would probably be arrested.

Arrest without trial or procedure; flag burning laws; citizens told their property can be taken from them by corporations. What are you, about the 20th most free country in the world now?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 4:39 AM

Quote:
You see what you see. Absent an articulated intent, you are making an assumption based on little or no data. If I choose to burn a flag to demonstrate my disrespect for Tom Delay and his fundraising tactics, then what you are "hearing" is not originating in what I'm "saying".

Context is irrelevent. When someone desecrates and American flag, they aren't protesting a specific person's action or an action of the administration, they're protesting America. If you were protesting someone like Tom Delay, you wouldn't desecrate a flag. You might burn an effigy of Delay...you might hold signs up calling for his resignation...you might chant things to similar effect, but you wouldn't burn an American flag becuause it has nothing to do with Delay. Please, tell me, other than the fact that Delay is an American, and he is a politician, what connection is there between him and the American flag? There's no more reason to burn a flag to protest Delay than there is to burn a flag to protest Senator Dodd. Since there's no connection between Delay and the flag, burning it doesn't specifically disrespect him. It might make him angry, but it doesn't disrespect him. It just doesn't apply to the situation.

When you say, "you see what you see", you're absolutely correct. But I think you're forgetting that the same message applies to yourself. Regardless of the message you're intending to send, when you burn a flag, you're saying you want to destroy America. That's the way it's interpereted by millions of people in this country, including everyone who's campaigning for the Amendment. Why not be more specific in your criticism of the situation? Flag-desecration doesn't really help you get your point across...it makes you look like a nut. Organized protests, writing editorials, sending letters to your congressmen...those are things that help you get your point across.

Quote:
Unless you can categorically say that EVERYTHING in this country is perfect, (NO innocent people jailed ever, complete equity in taxation, never got a ticket when you weren't speeding) and will ALWAYS be so, perhaps we'd better keep our options open with regard to expressing our displeasure. You never know when we're going to need them.

No, I can't say that everything is perfect...and that's all the more reason NOT to desecrate the flag. The flag represents all of the purest ideals of America. Freedom. Liberty. Justice for all. When you burn it, the message you're sending isn't that those things don't exist in America...you're saying that those things SHOULDN'T exist. Inasmuch as that message is probably exactly the opposite of the message you're trying to send, it really doesn't help your cause.

Again, under current laws, you can burn a flag. It's not illegal yet. Just be aware that the message you send by doing it may not be what you're intending to say. Why not find a more productive way of venting your frustrations? You might end up convincing someone that you're right.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Who remembers the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa (in a dream) is going to marry the British guy? He turns up at their house and through a series of unfortunate events, they display a burning British flag, stamp on it then cover it with manure. As a Brit, I laughed myself stupid. However, under the new constitution, if they did the same exact joke but with the American flag, the network, the writers and the producers would probably be arrested.

Arrest without trial or procedure; flag burning laws; citizens told their property can be taken from them by corporations. What are you, about the 20th most free country in the world now?

SimonWho:

FYI The Amendment hasn't been passed yet...may not pass at all (hopefully). It's not a law yet.

As for freedom, we're a little higher than 20th.

By economic freedom, we're 13th:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Uniteds
tates

And by civil freedom, we're high as well. "Freedom House" ranks us as number 1 in civil and political rights(tied with about 2 dozen other countries):

http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2004/countryratings/usa
.htm

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 6:21 AM

Hmm. That's a survey done by an American organisation which seems to view "free" as wherever America is currently standing. I wonder if they would have also have consider the America of "separate but equal" also "free".

This amendment is going into the Senate, not because of whether it is going to pass or not but because the Republicans can make the Democrats look bad for opposing it. Unfortunately, given the current hunger to win (and Pres in waiting Hilary's lack of 1st amendment concerns when it comes to, say, video games) it might pass regardless.

Where are all these militias that kept promising to attack to keep America free? What are they waiting for?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 6:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
When you say, "you see what you see", you're absolutely correct. But I think you're forgetting that the same message applies to yourself. Regardless of the message you're intending to send, when you burn a flag, you're saying you want to destroy America. That's the way it's interpereted by millions of people in this country, including everyone who's campaigning for the Amendment.

If Americans burn the flag and are NOT harassed or jailed for their actions and that is shown on international TV, what lessons do you think OTHERS could draw from that sight? I can think of several immediate reactions:

America is disorganized.
Their leader must be weak since he doesn't put down these demonstrations.
America is a land of great freedom
Even Americans recognize that their leaders are doing something wrong.

I can't imagine the FIRST interpretation being "Americans hate liberty"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Hmm. That's a survey done by an American organisation which seems to view "free" as wherever America is currently standing. I wonder if they would have also have consider the America of "separate but equal" also "free".

This amendment is going into the Senate, not because of whether it is going to pass or not but because the Republicans can make the Democrats look bad for opposing it. Unfortunately, given the current hunger to win (and Pres in waiting Hilary's lack of 1st amendment concerns when it comes to, say, video games) it might pass regardless.

Where are all these militias that kept promising to attack to keep America free? What are they waiting for?

According to Freedomhouse.org:

"Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded over sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right.

"Over the years, Freedom House has been at the center of the struggle for freedom. It was an outspoken advocate of the Marshall Plan and NATO in the 1940s, of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of the Vietnam boat people in the 1970s, of Poland's Solidarity movement and the Filipino democratic opposition in the 1980s, and of the many democracies that have emerged around the world in the 1990s."

So, I'm assuming that, since it supported the civil rights movement, it would not have considered the "seperate but equal" America as free as the America of today. I can't find any old ratings of theirs however. If you can find some "freedom ratings" from some other nonpartisan organizations, be my guest. Give me a suvey by a British organization. The one I used just happened to be one of the first Google results I found.

As for militias "promising to attack to keep America free", I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 9:51 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Quote:
Originally posted by gtman8503:
Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
Hmm. That's a survey done by an American organisation which seems to view "free" as wherever America is currently standing. I wonder if they would have also have consider the America of "separate but equal" also "free".

This amendment is going into the Senate, not because of whether it is going to pass or not but because the Republicans can make the Democrats look bad for opposing it. Unfortunately, given the current hunger to win (and Pres in waiting Hilary's lack of 1st amendment concerns when it comes to, say, video games) it might pass regardless.

Where are all these militias that kept promising to attack to keep America free? What are they waiting for?

According to Freedomhouse.org:

"Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Founded over sixty years ago by Eleanor Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, and other Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy, Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right.

"Over the years, Freedom House has been at the center of the struggle for freedom. It was an outspoken advocate of the Marshall Plan and NATO in the 1940s, of the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, of the Vietnam boat people in the 1970s, of Poland's Solidarity movement and the Filipino democratic opposition in the 1980s, and of the many democracies that have emerged around the world in the 1990s."

So, I'm assuming that, since it supported the civil rights movement, it would not have considered the "seperate but equal" America as free as the America of today. I can't find any old ratings of theirs however. If you can find some "freedom ratings" from some other nonpartisan organizations, be my guest. Give me a suvey by a British organization. The one I used just happened to be one of the first Google results I found.

As for militias "promising to attack to keep America free", I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

LOL Welcome to the boards GTMAN8503!

Now be prepared to defend yourself. We can't be seen to say anything Pro-America without being fully prepared to be flamed.

/hands over the flameretardant helmet and gloves

All I see this is is an attempt to get the flag burners going again. When you tell someone they can't do something then they are more likely to do it.

War on Drugs - Yep , we stopped smoking the doobs didn't we?! ;)

Prohibition - Yep..I'm nut dwunk ossifer weally I'm nut.. Hic Hic

War on Poverty - Damn! Connecticut just commandeered my home under Eminent Domain. They say they need the space for a Walmart.

War on Terror - Holy Shiite!!! Whats that dude doing wearing a big bulky coat in the heat of the summer?! Kaboom!!!!

Nah.. Big Government gets bigger and us little people give up a little more each time. This is a small thing really. However all those small things seem to add up pretty freaking quick. See Patriot Act II.

I love my country. I believe the flag represents America, but I could give 2 shits whether somebody burns it.

Thats the beauty of living in America. You can be a F***ing Asshole if you want to. As long as you don't kill anyone ( ahem..unless of course you're wealthy *cough* Ted Kennedy/OJ Simpson/ holy cripes the list is huge) or damage someone elses property (or any property that may cause insurance companies duress, can't set your own house on fire or crash your car etc..etc..)of course.

I'd rather see them REALLY address the tax code and social security blunders (maybe remove that $90,000 taxable income cap) before someone F***s that up more then it is. But Hey, we're talking about government here. They never get anything done LOL.

Jesus H. Crimony..I'm becoming a gorram socialist for the hell of it ;)

/ramble off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:07 AM

BEOWULF

I'm thinking if you want to be clear, you need to do something like suspend a flag over a flame and have a big sign saying "Please, Congress... don't do it".

Would that be a clear enough message that what you are about to do is symbolic of what you think congress is about to do in the sense that the flag is symbolic of the ammendment they're about to effectively burn?

I'm fairly confident that the House is just trotting this out again because it's a safe way to show "patriotism" with full knowledge that it will never pass the Senate. As with the past few times they've done it, I just hope they're right.

Quote:
Why not find a more productive way of venting your frustrations? You might end up convincing someone that you're right.

What protest is ever designed to convince anyone of anything other than the fact that the protesters are frustrated/angry/opinionated?

Frankly, if we're going to come up with useful protest ideas, I'm wondering if anyone up in New London, CT needs some reinforcements to defend their homes from a hostile force.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:07 AM

THENEWESTFIREFLYFANATIC

yep...this will go down as another dark smear in our nation's history...when we care more about whether or not we should burn a piece of cloth rather than whats happening to our education system, or poverty, etc, etc.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:18 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:
be prepared to defend yourself. We can't be seen to say anything Pro-America without being fully prepared to be flamed.

You neo-con right wing facist racist nazi elitist fur-wearing baby killin' flag humpin' oil guzzlin' fundamentalist-
Oh. I just read what's under the quote I highlighted. Never mind.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 11:06 AM

R1Z

Clearly you and I will never agree on this point, which is absolutely your right and one of the great beauties of our political system.

However, if you will will indulge me by answering one question: IF

Quote:
Context is irrelevent.

What, pray tell, is the difference, other than context, between burning a worn out flag respectfully and burning a flag in protest?

Seems to me that whether one stands at attention with hand over heart or jumps up and down screaming (which I would call context) makes all the difference.

You never know, next week someone may choose to burn a flag to protest the flavor of pudding served in the cafeteria. You and I may both agree it's a poor choice, but once again, their right and one of the great beauties of our system.

R1Z

To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites. Moderation is for monks. --Robt. Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 11:50 AM

HKCAVALIER

Couple things. I always thought that the whole flag burning thing back in the 60's was like the Vietnamese self-immolation thing. A symbol of what they believed was happening in the country. I don't think the Vietnamese individuals were burning themselves because they thought they were bad, right? "America and all she stands for are going down in flames!" That kind of thing. Not the most coherent message, but it got folks' attention.

The other thing: what has happened to patriotism since 1776 that we have to increase our reverence for the idols that symbolize our nation? The founding fathers saw no need to put this in the constitution, so why should we? Was it an oversight on their part?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 1:01 PM

PERFESSERGEE

The scary thing about the anti-flag burning advocates is that they *just don't get it* - the flag is a symbol, not a sacred object. Most rational people don't spend their time worshipping pieces of cloth, but then there's nothing rational about this debate - again, it's about symbols. Our flag is a symbol of some pretty wonderful things (like the freedom to more or less live like you want, criticize the idiots who run your government without very much repercussion, associate with whom you like and worship as you see fit). Unfortunately it's also a symbol that lots of jingoists use to obfuscate real problems (such as leaders who lie to us - great to wrap a flag around that one - or those who deny the very liberty that flag symbolizes - think of the detention of US citizens without recourse to our constitutional legal system). Hypocrisy is such a wonderful thing.....

I love this country, and I've spent enough time in several other countries (Africa, South America) to fully undertand the value of our liberty and the scope of our opportunity. I proudly sing our national anthem every time it comes up. But I will not pledge "allegiance to the flag" - my allegiance is to my country, not to a symbol. I believe in what my country is, though I may sometimes deprecate what it does. I've never burned a flag, and I never will, but those of you who think it ought to be banned need to work on your rational thought processes and perhaps spend a little time reading some of the philosophers whose thought informed the writing of our constitution.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 2:09 PM

You know, I didn't necessarily see this as a freedom of speech issue until I began reading the reasoning given by the supporters of the ammendment. They are very clear that what they want to squelch is the emotions and ideas expressed by burning the flag. They're not concerned, necessarily, with the repurcussions of that speech. They're not worried about the vandalism of it all or even that flag burners might incite violence. They are clearly focused on the offense of showing disrespect. Their attitude is succinctly summed up in the refrain -

"Sit down and shut up!"

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 2:33 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You know, I didn't necessarily see this as a freedom of speech issue until I began reading the reasoning given by the supporters of the ammendment. They are very clear that what they want to squelch is the emotions and ideas expressed by burning the flag. They're not concerned, necessarily, with the repurcussions of that speech. They're not worried about the vandalism of it all or even that flag burners might incite violence. They are clearly focused on the offense of showing disrespect. Their attitude is succinctly summed up in the refrain -

"Sit down and shut up!"

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Hey, didn't George Orwell write a book once about a country where the government tried to control its citizens' emotions and thoughts?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 4:05 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Woopee! So we're going to make the Flag the American version of the Quran, and get our panties all in a bunch if anyone burns it. WRONG!

I see the burning of the Flag as the highest symbol of our freedom. That our people have the right to destroy the very avatar of our country is an affirmation of our system of government. Taking this away is a BIG mistake.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:06 PM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Woopee! So we're going to make the Flag the American version of the Quran, and get our panties all in a bunch if anyone burns it. WRONG!

I see the burning of the Flag as the highest symbol of our freedom. That our people have the right to destroy the very avatar of our country is an affirmation of our system of government. Taking this away is a BIG mistake.

YES! For that matter, HELL YES! (and even AMEN!). Let me try and clarify it for those of you who have trouble reasoning: If you are not willing to defend (and I don't mean "tolerate" here folks, I mean stick your neck out and DEFEND, gorramit) the rights of those who want to say things that you absolutely despise, then you cannot logically or morally defend your own rights to speak up for what you believe. Anything less is sheer blind demagoguery, and is morally bankrupt and itself despicable. If you can't understand that defending the rights of others to speak doesn't mean that you agree with their viewpoint, then please go back to kindergarten and start to re-educate yourself about the ethics of the playground during recess.

However, one can always disagree and point out the flaws in someone else's reasoning (including mine) - ye gods, isn't that the whole basis of this section of threads? You can even flame them beyond belief, but the gods will probably also agree that you aren't going to change anybody's mind or even influence their thinking that way. But if all you want to do is flame..............

Just another cent or two's worth from my viewpoint.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:27 AM

CONNORFLYNN

Great post. I think in general the world places WAY to much emphasis on the physical and less on the psychological.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:58 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Just another cent or two's worth from my viewpoint.
perfessergee

I'd buy that for a dollar.
Well said. That sums up everything I really feel about it, but am not good enough in English in writing to type.

Inarticulate Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 7:39 AM

ROCKETJOCK

If someone burns a flag, they are burning a piece of cloth. That's the physical act.

If they are protesting what they perceive the flag standing for, that's an act of free speech, which is constitutionally protected. That's the symbolic act.

If you pass a law saying you can't perform the physical act because of what the piece of cloth stands for, you are forbidding a symbolic act. You are limiting freedom of speech.

To me, that's the real desecration.

"Do you know what the definition of a hero is? It's somebody who gets somebody else killed." -- Zoë Warren

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 8:14 AM

This sudden love for all things “freedom of speech” is nice and all, but in order for freedom of speech to be a real thing, it must exist independent of burning the flag. Please forgive my cynicism, but I remember using the same arguments many of you are now using to argue against hate-speech, speech-codes and to a certain degree hate-crimes during the Clinton Administration. If we should have the right to burn the flag, shouldn’t we also have the right to burn a cross?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:40 AM

OPUS

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:

YES! For that matter, HELL YES! (and even AMEN!). Let me try and clarify it for those of you who have trouble reasoning: If you are not willing to defend (and I don't mean "tolerate" here folks, I mean stick your neck out and DEFEND, gorramit) the rights of those who want to say things that you absolutely despise, then you cannot logically or morally defend your own rights to speak up for what you believe. Anything less is sheer blind demagoguery, and is morally bankrupt and itself despicable. If you can't understand that defending the rights of others to speak doesn't mean that you agree with their viewpoint, then please go back to kindergarten and start to re-educate yourself about the ethics of the playground during recess.

So you're willing to fight and die for the rights of Nambla, a pedophile organization who publish a book entitled "Rape and Escape"? The book tells how to lure, befriend and rape a child, then escape detection and or prosecution.
Call me a facist if you will but I think there are limits to speech that deserves defending.
Regarding the flag, politicians show boating, even in the unlikely event it made it through both houses, two thirds of the states, I think, have to approve it. Never happen. I don't agree with it either.
The people who do choose to burn flags to get attention or make a point, end of alienating a vast group of people. So basically they're just children throwing a temper tantrum to get attention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This sudden love for all things “freedom of speech” is nice and all, but in order for freedom of speech to be a real thing, it must exist independent of burning the flag. Please forgive my cynicism, but I remember using the same arguments many of you are now using to argue against hate-speech, speech-codes and to a certain degree hate-crimes during the Clinton Administration. If we should have the right to burn the flag, shouldn’t we also have the right to burn a cross?

Yes.

But if burning a cross, or a flag, incites a riot the gets people killed, you've committed a crime. If it targets specific individuals or groups for persecution, it's wrong.

I can see many scenarios where burning a flag would be, and should be, illegal. It's a matter of context. But those scenarios all involve other offenses that are already illegal. There's nothing inherent in the act of setting a piece of cloth on fire that brings harm to others.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yes.

But if burning a cross, or a flag, incites a riot the gets people killed, you've committed a crime. If it targets specific individuals or groups for persecution, it's wrong.

Well it stands to reason that it is wrong, but that’s a judgment call. I think a lot of things are wrong, but does that mean the state should suppress the freedom of expression because I believe something is wrong? Let’s say that I’m a racist who believes that the nation is better off having a “pure race,” whatever that means. Then if I protest our lack of purity, as it were, in our race by burning a cross, should I be committing a crime?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:21 AM

If it can be construed as a threat, yes it should be illegal. If you're just expressing your opinion, then no.

Did you get what I was saying? I was agreeing with you. A lot of the hate-crime stuff is as stupid as the flag burning ammendment. The way I see it, there have to be victims before something like that can legitimately be called a crime.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:39 AM

Yeah, I understand what you were saying. I was just clarifying, I guess.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 11:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think there's a difference between burning a cross on someone's front lawn (a direct threat)and burning a cross on public property. I personally think the whole category of "hate crime" is stupid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:08 PM

1. "Here's how you abuse children and get away with it."
2. "Everybody, let's kill all the Jews."
3. "Fire!" (in a crowded theatre)
4. "I'm going to kill you!"
5. Whomph! (that's the sound of a flag burning).

There is a difference between the first four and the last one. In a truly free society, nobody has the right not to be offended. That's not to say that use of free speech won't have consequences for the speakers involved (Martin Luther King springs to mind) but the very fact that they have to introduce an amendment shows that burning the flag is de facto, covered under the first amendment.

But I repeat; this is a POLITICAL move, not one of ideology. This is Republicans putting the Democrats under pressure by asking the political equivalent of "Will you stop beating your wife?" Those Democrats that go against the amendment will be labelled flag burners. Those Democrats that support the amendment will be vilified by their own party.

Trust me; this getting to the Senate is what have the GOP licking its lips, not that anti-Hilary book. Those who see this as a limitation of their freedom of speech? They weren't going to vote Republican anyway plus it gets to keep the Democrats painted as the party who are "anti-America".

P.S. Oh and technically, the KKK "light crosses", they don't burn them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
... Those who see this as a limitation of their freedom of speech? They weren't going to vote Republican anyway plus it gets to keep the Democrats painted as the party who are "anti-America".

Is that really true though? Will all or even most Republicans will buy into this charade? Won't they risk alienating a good portion of their own supporters?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:51 PM

I don't know. How many Republicans here support the amendment/support the Republican party pushing the amendment?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:13 PM

OPUS

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
I don't know. How many Republicans here support the amendment/support the Republican party pushing the amendment?

I don't agree with the principle of the amendment, it's just political theater, both sides do it, if not this subject then something else.
The democrats will use it to fire up their base proclaiming yet again that the republicans are evil incarnate, somehow making yet another Bushhitler comparison.
The republicans will use it to fire up their base portraying the dems as america hating commie bastards.
Unless I'm mistaken this is the fifth or sixth time this has been proposed and it eventually will be again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 2:17 PM

KNIBBLET

It all comes back to the same basic message:
Free Speech is fabulous as long as you're saying what those in power want to hear.

With apologies to Will Rogers:
I'd never burn my country's flag but I'd defend the right of some other cretin to do so. Then, I'd kick him in the ass.

http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/MN-Firefly/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Opus:
I don't agree with the principle of the amendment, it's just political theater, both sides do it, if not this subject then something else.
The democrats will use it to fire up their base proclaiming yet again that the republicans are evil incarnate, somehow making yet another Bushhitler comparison.
The republicans will use it to fire up their base portraying the dems as america hating commie bastards.
Unless I'm mistaken this is the fifth or sixth time this has been proposed and it eventually will be again.

You're right, of course. This kind of idiocy is why I can't understand why people support either of the major parties. Do you people just like getting conned?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 3:20 PM

dblpost

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:16 PM

OPUS

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're right, of course. This kind of idiocy is why I can't understand why people support either of the major parties. Do you people just like getting conned?

No one's being conned, the tactic, if not the issue has been around forever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 25, 2005 4:41 PM