Flag burning

[Sojourner]

Although the measure has been voted down, I find the timing of the flag burning proposal to be suspicious (just as I found the timing of the marriage amendment to be suspicious). But I"m open to suggestions. Is flag burning really something we should be discussing?

As a starting point, [url="http://www.glassesonweb.com/CatalogImages/Frames/big/bf_47839.jpg"]Dana Milbank in the Washington Post[/url] has this to say:
[quote]The naive among us may have trouble appreciating how four flag-burning episodes would constitute a constitutional crisis. But the men and women of the Senate, ever alert to emerging threats, are on the case.[/quote]
[quote]Fortunately, the Senate will have plenty of time to discuss that matter. The chamber has scheduled up to four days of debate on the flag-burning amendment this week. If that formula -- one day of Senate debate for each incident of flag burning this year -- were to be applied to other matters, the Senate would need to schedule 12 days of debate to contemplate the number of years before Medicare goes broke, 335 days of debate for each service member killed in Iraq this year and 11 million days of debate on the estimated number of illegal immigrants in the country.[/quote]

[Era Might]

I don't care if people burn the flag. It's not a sacred object, and burning it in effigy is not sacrilege.

Not that I think people SHOULD burn the flag, but I don't think they should be prevented from doing so (unless it's a fire hazard).

[toledo_jesus]

As a conservative I disagree with legislation on this issue. Burning a flag is distasteful, but protected under the Constitution as a form of speech.

[Jaime]

I think if they combined the two amendments they'd have a shot. We need to ensure that two flags from the same country cannot marry

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1013745' date='Jun 28 2006, 10:06 AM']
Although the measure has been voted down, I find the timing of the flag burning proposal to be suspicious (just as I found the timing of the marriage amendment to be suspicious). But I"m open to suggestions. Is flag burning really something we should be discussing?

As a starting point, [url="http://www.glassesonweb.com/CatalogImages/Frames/big/bf_47839.jpg"]Dana Milbank in the Washington Post[/url] has this to say:
[/quote]
Um, so I posted the wrong link. I really should check these things ... [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/26/AR2006062601321.html"]This is the link for the Post article[/url]




[quote name='hot stuff' post='1013818' date='Jun 28 2006, 11:24 AM']
I think if they combined the two amendments they'd have a shot. We need to ensure that two flags from the same country cannot marry
[/quote]
I TOTALLY AGREE!

I'm going to write my Senator.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1013816' date='Jun 28 2006, 09:24 AM'] As a conservative I disagree with legislation on this issue. Burning a flag is distasteful, but protected under the Constitution as a form of speech. [/quote]

It's:

1) not speech
2) "expression," which is not protected as a right under the Constitution
3) disrespectful
4) actually only allowed to be done by the Boy Scouts and military.

[track2004]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1013915' date='Jun 28 2006, 12:28 PM']
It's:

1) not speech
2) "expression," which is not protected as a right under the Constitution
3) disrespectful
4) actually only allowed to be done by the Boy Scouts and military.
[/quote]

OOB 1) Is the gold fringe on it optional because I was always taught that that was a part of the flag so... if it doesn't have the gold is it still our flag?

OOB 2) It is disrespectful, but serves as a very poingnant image to voice distaste at what it represents. The US is pretty awesome, but we make mistakes and burning a flag makes a bigger impact than calling my senator.

OOB 3) "Allowed" is such a funny word. Sure they are allowed to do it, but I can and in the end "can" really wins. It reminds me of a time I was wrestling a friend in the local B&N. An employee came up and told us, "You can't do that in here." To which I responded, "We just did, so I guess we can." We left right after.

OOB 4) Doesn't congress have something better to focus on like oh... a few trillion dollar national debt OR a war on something that isn't even really an attackable entity OR the cute interns... something?

[Era Might]

[quote name='track2004' post='1014093' date='Jun 28 2006, 06:29 PM']burning a flag makes a bigger impact than calling my senator.[/quote]
Are you serious?

Nobody cares if you burn a flag. It's so Vietnam-era cliche.

I'll call my senator any day over burning a flag. Better yet, get 5 of your friends to call your senator instead.

[Sojourner]

I've talked to more than one person working for a politician who says they really do pay attention to the volume of calls they get on a particular issue. They track and tally support from constituents, and supposedly it does play some role in how they vote.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I think burning flags is stupid but this amendment thing is a bit of a waste of time. It would not stop anyone anyway.

[zwergel88]

Flag burning is freedom of speech. I should have the right to burn anything that I want as long as I'm not physically hurting anyone, and if they make burning the flag illegal I'm going to do it just to spite them.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='track2004' post='1014093' date='Jun 28 2006, 05:29 PM']

OOB 1) Is the gold fringe on it optional because I was always taught that that was a part of the flag so... if it doesn't have the gold is it still our flag?

OOB 2) It is disrespectful, but serves as a very poingnant image to voice distaste at what it represents. The US is pretty awesome, but we make mistakes and burning a flag makes a bigger impact than calling my senator.

OOB 3) "Allowed" is such a funny word. Sure they are allowed to do it, but I can and in the end "can" really wins. It reminds me of a time I was wrestling a friend in the local B&N. An employee came up and told us, "You can't do that in here." To which I responded, "We just did, so I guess we can." We left right after.

OOB 4) Doesn't congress have something better to focus on like oh... a few trillion dollar national debt OR a war on something that isn't even really an attackable entity OR the cute interns... something? [/quote]

So might makes right?


[quote name='zwergel88' post='1014300' date='Jun 28 2006, 10:39 PM'] Flag burning is freedom of speech. I should have the right to burn anything that I want as long as I'm not physically hurting anyone, and if they make burning the flag illegal I'm going to do it just to spite them. [/quote]

No, actually, it is not.

[quote]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.[/quote]

If they didn't want it to be taken literally as speech then there is no need for the following clause about the press.

However, burning a flag, just like wearing a t-shirt that says some explicative, is not a freedom of speech. It is a gross misinterpretation to put it in that category.

[Lounge Daddy]

[size=2][i]political posturing[/i] for sure[/size]

1) you have the right to burn the flag... and look like an idiot
2) you have the right to be kicked for doing so

God bless America!

[God the Father]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1014339' date='Jun 29 2006, 02:18 AM']
2) you have the right to be kicked for doing so
[/quote]

I wouldn't go that far. Hilarious as it would be to kick someone burning a flag straight across the face, he'd probably have a fit and try to get you arrested for assault. You know how these "civil rights" types are.

My Advanced Algebra teacher, who is also a US Marine, had an article in his room about his superior officer or somebody commentating on flag burning. He said something about how too many Americans have marched behind it and too many Americans have come home in a box covered in it to show such a degree of disrespect. I guess I feel the same way.

Last I heard, burning something is not speech. It is not press, it is not assembly, and it is not religion. The Four Freedoms right there in the first amendment don't seem to cover flag burning. Burning a flag is disgusting, repulvise, etc. Not to mention all the smoke. People want to ban public smoking, hell, ban public flag burning. The only difference is the wind blows all the smoke [i]away[/i] from the dude burning the flag and into the lungs of the patriotic citizens around him.

As much as I love freedom, there has to be a system of checks and balances to protect the inoffensive, centrist public. In a lawful society, the law serves as the check. In a lawless society, someone burning a flag or running around naked would get the carp beaten out of him. To protect the accused, there are laws against this. To copmensate for [i]this[/i] the law needs to step in where the people cannot.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1014320' date='Jun 29 2006, 01:18 AM']
So might makes right?
No, actually, it is not.
If they didn't want it to be taken literally as speech then there is no need for the following clause about the press.

However, burning a flag, just like wearing a t-shirt that says some explicative, is not a freedom of speech. It is a gross misinterpretation to put it in that category.
[/quote]
Legally speaking, freedom of speech covers a variety of forms of expression. It's not limited to vocalization. T-shirts, flag-burning, and other forms of expression rightly fall into this category.

It covers all the manners in which we speak. We speak through means other than vocalization ("That music spoke to me", "Actions speak louder than words", "His face spoke of his love for her.") Pope John Paul II used to term to describe artworks: "Through his works, the artist speaks to others and communicates with them. The history of art, therefore, is not only a story of works produced but also a story of men and women. Works of art speak of their authors; they enable us to know their inner life, and they reveal the original contribution which artists offer to the history of culture."

This isn't a take on whether flag-burning or explicit T-shirts are [i]good[/i], but they do fall into the category of "speech," and can be regulated as such.