Reply With Quote
It's a stupid idea for a stupid law that only serves to elevate the "shock value" of a stupid protest tactic.
The best way to guarantee an increase in "flag burnings" is to make it illegal.
The symbol of freedom?
The Senate is expected to vote within the next two weeks on a
cons utional amendment to ban desecrating the flag. Last
summer the House of Representatives, in a vote of 286 to 130,
passed a resolution that would create a new amendment to the
Cons ution allowing, “The Congress shall have the power to
prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United
States.” This was the sixth time since 1990 that the House
had approved a flag desecration amendment, only to have the
Senate reject it or simply fail to vote on it. But the Senate
now appears poised to erode our Cons utional right to free
speech and expression by approving it.
Efforts to protect the flag at the expense of the First
Amendment have been a common occurrence during wartime. In
the Civil War, when Union military commanders took control of
Confederate areas they prohibited the desecration of the flag.
In 1862 New Orleans became the first Confederate city to be
occupied by Union forces. General Benjamin Butler was
commander of the Union army for southern Louisiana. He issued
an order that no flag other than the national flag could be
displayed, and that “the American [flag] be treated with the
utmost deference and respect by all persons, under pain of
severe punishment.”
William Mumford tested this order when he removed the flag
atop the New Orleans branch of the U.S. Mint. He dragged the
flag through the streets before tearing it into pieces and
handing it out to his fellow Confederates. General Butler had
him arrested and subsequently hanged for his act of
desecration.
Congress twice violated the First Amendment while attempting
to protect the flag during World War I. In 1917 Congress
passed a law making it a misdemeanor to publicly desecrate
the flag in the nation’s capital. A year later, Congress
passed a law requiring the termination of any federal
employee who “when the United States is at war…in an abusive
or violent manner criticizes…the flag of the United States.”
Many state legislatures also passed flag desecration laws.
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled in 1918 that insulting the
flag was a crime. Montana passed one of the strictest flag
desecration laws during World War I. Over 200 residents of
Montana were convicted of disrespecting the flag during the
course of the war. E.V. Starr, after refusing to kiss the
flag as a sign of his patriotism, was convicted and sentenced
to ten years of hard labor.
Congress passed the first flag desecration law during the
Vietnam War, in the wake of anti-war demonstrations. In 1968
Congress passed the Federal Flag Desecration Law that
criminalized anyone who “knowingly casts contempt upon any
flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing,
defiling, burning, or trampling upon it.” Shortly thereafter,
Sydney Street burned a flag after learning that a prominent
civil rights activist had been shot. Street told the crowd
who gathered around him as it burned, “…we don’t need no
[expletive] flag.” He was arrested and convicted under the
new law.
A year later the Supreme Court overturned his conviction in
the case of Street v. New York. The Court didn’t specifically
address Street’s burning of the flag. However, it ruled that
his verbal comments were protected under the First Amendment
right to free speech.
The Supreme Court finally addressed cons utional issues
concerning burning the flag in 1989. In the case of Texas v.
Johnson, the Court ruled on a Texas law that criminalized the
mistreatment of the flag, to include setting it on fire. The
Supreme Court upheld a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling
that the law was uncons utional. This effectively defined
burning the flag as a protected form of free speech.
Congress was offended by this ruling and later that year
passed the Flag Protection Act. The legislation made a
criminal out of anyone who “knowingly mutilates, defaces,
physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground,
or tramples upon any U.S. flag.” The Supreme Court responded
to the new law in 1990 in the case of U.S. v. Eichman. In a
five to four ruling the Court found that the act violated the
First Amendment right to free speech and expression.
The current effort by Congress to pass a flag desecration
amendment is largely attributable to the war in Iraq.
Supporters, which include such strange bedfellows as
Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein and Republican Senator
Orrin Hatch, insist that it’s needed in order to show respect
to veterans. They hope that the two-thirds majority needed to
forward the amendment to the states for ratification will be
too fearful to vote against it and run the risk of being
labeled “unpatriotic” or “un-American” during an election
year. But the Senate should reject it.
The flag represents all that is noble about America. It
symbolizes our rights and freedoms, and it should be treated
with respect. But it’s merely a symbol. To outlaw the right
to free speech and expression, especially regarding
desecration of the flag, would be a mockery of the freedoms
and liberties our veterans fought for and defended.
The only "legit" way to get rid of an old or tattered flag is to burn it.
It's a stupid idea for a stupid law that only serves to elevate the "shock value" of a stupid protest tactic.
The best way to guarantee an increase in "flag burnings" is to make it illegal.
I was about to mention that. My old JROTC unit did several retirement ceremonies for old flags.
The symbol of freedom?
The only "legit" way to get rid of an old or tattered flag is to burn it.
It's just pathetic that people would want to ban that, or any form of expression involving the flag. We have the cons utional right to display our displeasure with the government, and the flag is a symbol of the government as well as the nation.
^^It also represents all those who have died defending the country. They and
the flag deserve respect. Not some damn got who has not idea what is going
on in the world to begin with burning it.
Freedom of expression my foot. They have a mouth, why don't they try using it.
Of course most of the time they have their foot in it.
They deserve respect, but they are not legally en led to it. Nor should they be. Sort of undermines the value of "respect" to do so.
They will be legally en led to it, if they pass the amendment! Thats the point
the flag and what it represents should have the legal obligation of respect.
How can you legally coerce respect?
And let's not forget that this is just another election year special to rile up the base with issues that aren't over their heads.
Idiocy.
lol, X-ray, you are a joke. I would love to hear one logical reason to prohibit flag burning. Will we then make it illegal to openly question America, or at least to openly slander America and its government? Will we shut down any radio or newspaper which disgraces our fallen or our history?
These people died to protect freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, and lunatics like you want to get rid of that freedom in order to make sure that their ghosts arent disrespected. Well, if you win then their deaths were in vain, they didn't gain us anything except for a delay of the inevitable.
And legal obligation of respect? This isn't Red China old man, we can disrespect our government and our countries past without any threat of bodily harm. We are a free people, living in a free country, or at least we were until Bush and his whack-job friends took hold of the government. Our freedoms are being diminished, and proud patriots like yourself are standing to the side waving the flag and grinning.
Please, tell me one reason why I am wrong, and one reason that is based on reason and logic that this practice should be banned.
CLINTON.
OVAL OFFICE.
and...
BLOWJOB!!!
While true that it is also a symbol of those who died to protect our freedoms, respect is given not demanded.
DEMANDING respect only results in the opposite happening.
Why use the phrase "freedom of expression" and tell them to only use speech? The Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech literally, expression is an interpretation. You'd think if that was your point of view you'd use the phrase freedom of speech.
There is no valid reason the ban flag desecration. The only reaosn is blind patriotism and demanding something that cannot be demanded.
Can I take a dump on a flag or that will be illegal too?
^^I fail to see why you are so against protecting the symbol of our freedom. Burning
or "taking a dump" on the flag is expression alright. But expression of what. Your
stupidity in not being able to express yourself otherwise?
How bout I take a picture of your family and take a dump on it. You would want to
kick my rearend and I would deserve it. But, but I have the right to express myself,
right?
Why is it necessary to show your disrespect for your country. Because burning
the flag is just that. Disrespect, not freedom of speech. You people keep
getting your priorities all mixed up. Your argument is not with the government, but
the people in government. YOU are the government. YOU elected the people
in government. YOU can kick them out of government. YOU can express yourself
to your representative or any other person in government without reprisal or fear.
Unless you threaten bodily harm. Lean how to express yourself and no disrespect
the symbols of our country.
As long as you didn't crap on the picture in public (public indecency laws), there's no legal problem with you doing that, nor should there. They would have the right to want to kick your butt, and that's fine.
Same with the flag. As long as they didn't do the defecating in public, it should be perfectly legal. You'd have the right to be pissed off about it and yell and scream at them all you want. Big deal.
As I said, you cannot legislate respect. If someone does disrepect this country, this government, the troops, whatever, they should be allowed to express that disrespect. Also, that's how YOU see it. I don't see it that way.Why is it necessary to show your disrespect for your country. Because burning
the flag is just that. Disrespect, not freedom of speech.
1) There are 2 uses for "government". One is the system that is in place, the other is the current make up of the government. The word government can be applied to the people currently acting as the government, or the system as a whole.You people keep getting your priorities all mixed up. Your argument is not with the government, but the people in government. YOU are the government. YOU elected the people in government. YOU can kick them out of government. YOU can express yourself to your representative or any other person in government without reprisal or fear.
2) I have a problem with the system as a whole. The House of Representatives should be a parliamentary body. There is no way to overturn a law by judicial decree of the Supreme Court. The 10th Amendment has been raped of its spirit, intent, and authority. These are all problems with the government itself, not the people currently in power.
You are so stuck on the respect thing its insane. We are ALLOWED to disrespect people, things, symbols if we want to. And YOU are the one seeing it as disrespect. Not everyone sees it as such.Unless you threaten bodily harm. Lean how to express yourself and no disrespect the symbols of our country.
Desecrating the US flag is much less an insult to America and its mythical ideals than the Repugs insult of nominating dubya to be president.
btw, although the USA is belligerent, war-mongering, murderous country, the US military doesn't own the US flag in exclusivity.
The flag amendment is just another election year litmus testing issue, divding and inflaming, and rousing their base of ignorant rabble. The Repugs can't run on their disatrous record, so they create gay-marriage and flag-descecration BS side issues and force congressional votes on them so the Repugs can hammer/smear so-and-so during the campaign as "pro-gay" and "anti-flag".
Meanwhile, Repug s fail totally to govern the country, murder and maim 1000s of US military with a phony war in Iraq, while protecting+enriching energy co's and rich.
The Repugs ARE the CENTRAL ISSUE, not gays and flags.
Americans have the politics and politicians they deserve.
Definitely the gay marraige and flag desecration amendments are being brought up to encourage the fan base to mobilize (through getting this on the news and having the votes to advertise). The Democrats did the same things when they were in power (Bush has actually co-opted the Dems pet issues).
The Reps. record isn't as disasterous as people claim, and its not like the Dems record is any better from a domestic point of view (obviously a foreigner will compare Clinton and Bush and favor Dems).
This election, the Dems are much more likely to use smear tactics than the republicans because the uniting Dem platform is "We're not THEM!". I haven't heard a non-presidential Dem candidate talking about issues in over a decade.
A lot of the current problems lie not in the Reps inability to govern, but the Dems/Reps/Bush all refuse to compromise. Heck, stubborn old Bush has been the most willing to compromise of the bunch. The Dems have spent much of the last year trying to disrupt the ability of the Senate to function. It's not as cut and dry as "Repug s fail totally to govern the country".
And you really should rephrase "phony war". Obviously the war is real. It's the issues that cause them to go into the war that are messed up. That's just a nitpick thing, though.
Dude, I can't do anything buy laugh with every reply you make. Your hatred of Bush/GOP makes me laugh. How do you function in life? Your life must consist of you sitting at the computer surfing the internet 24/7 looking for ANYTHING negative about Bush as to ease the mental anguish they cause you.
It would depend on the cir stance, but if you were doing it in a way to make a statement -- with people around and all sorts of commotion -- I'd think you could be arrested; not for desecrating the flag (that's protected by the First Amendment) but for public indecency or some other similar crime.
The silly thing to me about the flag burning debate is that the more there's a push to make the flag sacrosanct, the more protesters are fueled to desecrate it as a sign of protest. If the flag didn't mean so much to so many, nobody would really care if protesters burned it or took a dump on it or whatever else. I mean, the endless volumes of the Congressional Record or the United States Code embody the law of the land and the policy decisions that so many rally against, but few would be bothered (and fewer still would get the point) if Paul Protester stood on the steps of the Capital and burned those things.
Absolutely. The price of free speech is always the possibility that someone will disagree, perhaps violently. I'd never condone violence, but at the same time, I'd be shocked if a jury in most any jurisdiction would convict a person who was charged with assaulting a flag burner.
But disrepect is, in a sense, the practical embodiment of freedom of speech. What good would free speech be if everyone was obliged to respect particular matters? What makes the First Amendment brilliant is that it protects the dissenter, the protester, the person who views things in an unorthodox manner. It stands for the proposition that there isn't an expressive line that we all must toe. It would be hollow if it didn't do that.
I'd laugh at you for doing something so outlandish in the attempt to insult me, but I wouldn't try to have you arrested.How bout I take a picture of your family and take a dump on it. You would want to
kick my rearend and I would deserve it. But, but I have the right to express myself,
right?
The war is phony becasue the reasons for the war were phony, outright lies.
That the war is a REAL ing gawdawful disaster in planning and execution is a separate issue.
The invasion was based on bad intel that according to the ISG report Saddam himself purpetuated to the best of his abilities. Yes there were certainly errors in judgement in interpreting the info, but even most of the governments that opposed removing Saddam believed he still had WMD. The only real contention on the issue was some countries wanted the inspectors to prove it one way or the other before action was taken while others believed Saddam was capable of hiding his activities from the inspectors.
Never the less, the war is not phony. It is/was not a fake war. It was a very real war with a very real loss of life. Immoral, unethical, unjust, unnecessary. Those can apply depending on your perspective, but calling it phony is just idiotic.
"bad intel"
We've heard since that WHIG cherry picked intel that fit their decision, before 2000, to invade Iraq, and suppressed all doubts about its veracity, suppressed/terminated dissenters, fired those who questioned the war planning (Shinsheki), and gave medals to those who played along and provided the "bad intel".
They didn't "cherry pick" any intel with strong reliable sources. Those were all included. From not so reliable sources they did cherry pick, including providing misleading summaries of several reports that gave the opposite impression of what the report actually concluded (the yellowcake incident).
There some definite issues in the leadup, especially regarding Saddam's nuclear interest. He apparently gave up any intention of developing nuclear weapons in 1996 or 7. With his chemical and biological weapons division he made sure they were easily recons uted, but he did no such thing with his nuclear weapon research.
Saddam still did his best to increase belief that he was subverting sanctions and still working on it, including buying black market dual use equipment and being a bit obvious about it (was confiscated in route).
There were conflicting reports on his programs, and the people controlling the intelligence influenced it to the way they wanted it. It's a horrible shame.
But very few countries doubted that Saddam still had chemical weapons stores, and possibly biological (which apparently he ceased research in 97 with the intent of starting again after sanctions were lifted).
The real lie was suggesting Saddam would give any weapons he had to al-Qaeda. There was never much chance of that.
Like I said, there's no denying that there were a whole mess of anomalies leading up to the war.
I don't care if you think it was all outright lies with no actual info to support it. Doesn't matter.
Calling the war phony ignores the real tragedies of the war, the 2500 dead US soldiers, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, the thousands and thousands of injuries, the problems with getting basic services running over there, the people suffering as they wonder if their loved ones will be blown up today.
Those are the biggest tragedies of this, and calling the war phony draws attention away from that and focuses only on the lies. Like I said, feel free to call the war unjustified, immoral, or anything else. Calling it fake is wrong.
Let me know when the Family Photograph Defecation Desecration Protection Act makes it out of committee, x.How bout I take a picture of your family and take a dump on it. You would want to
kick my rearend and I would deserve it. But, but I have the right to express myself,
right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
