Flag burning

[Sojourner]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1017455' date='Jul 5 2006, 11:30 AM']
I agree with my father. I don't know whether I should be troubled by this or not.
[/quote]
I agree with your father as well.


Which means you also agree with me.


If I were you, I'd definitely be troubled by that.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1017478' date='Jul 5 2006, 10:57 AM']
I agree with your father as well.
Which means you also agree with me.
If I were you, I'd definitely be troubled by that.
[/quote]
I'm going to lose my Republican membership card if I keep talking like this. Then I'll have no party to call my own...

[Sojourner]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1017616' date='Jul 5 2006, 03:32 PM']
I'm going to lose my Republican membership card if I keep talking like this. Then I'll have no party to call my own...
[/quote]
Really, that's not such a bad position to be in. It's freeing, actually, not to have to follow the whims of a political party ...

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1017620' date='Jul 5 2006, 02:38 PM']
Really, that's not such a bad position to be in. It's freeing, actually, not to have to follow the whims of a political party ...
[/quote]
well, especially when that party isn't really what it says it is.

Where are my Bull Moosers at?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1016391' date='Jul 2 2006, 08:34 PM']
It doesn't have an "intrinsic" meaning. That's just the point. The American flag is a piece of clothe. It only represents what people say it represents.

I don't disagree that burning the flag can be, and usually is, a sin against the virtue of patriotism. My point is that it is not INTRINSICALLY a sin against Patriotism, and in THEORY, can be morally acceptable. For that reason, I think it's silly to criminalize it.

A flag and a crucifix are not at all analogous. One represents something eternal; God. The other represents something temporal and subject to sin; a civil empire. To desecrate a crucifix is always a sin because it represents a perfect and sinless God. A flag represents something imperfect. It is no more intrinsically wrong to burn a flag than it is to call a nation the "whore of babylon", as St. John does.
[/quote]
If you're going to argue that an American flag or its improper burning has no "intrinsic" meaning, you might as well say that [i]no[/i] symbols have any intrinsic meaning. Let's face it; have the Stars and Stripes [i]ever[/i] stood for anything but the United States of America? Has burning a U.S. flag in a manner other than lawful retirement [i]ever[/i] been for any purpose than to disrespect the flag and the country it stands for??

I keep using examples of the crucifix and other religious symbols because it seems you acknowledge that they stand for something, yet for some reason, you keep insisting the flag is a meaningless "piece of cloth." Yes, the crucifix stands for something infinitely greater than the flag, yet both have universally accepted and recognized meaning.
But by your own argument, there is no reason the crucifix or any other widely recognized religious symbol, nor the defacement thereof, should have any intrinsic meaning. One could hypothetically claim the crucifix doesn't represent Christ, but just some other guy nailed to wood, or a cool "gothic" design, or "anti-Semitism" or whatever he so "chooses" it to symbolize.

To disrespect one's own country is contrary to the virtue of piety.

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1016422' date='Jul 2 2006, 09:38 PM']
Flag burning most certainly is protected by the first amendment. If I want to sit in my front yard and burn a flag that most certainly is my right. Think about it, first they ban flag burning, before we know it, it will be illegal to critisize the president. America must remain a place where people can express themselves in any way they see fit. I'm so glad this got defeated.
[/quote]
Burning the flag has long been illegal in 47 states. And in those states, it is still perfectly legal to criticize the president (or any other politician or political policy). Legally protecting the flag poses no danger to free political speech. That is a "slippery-slope" fallacy.

Criticize the president all you want. There's no need to desecrate the symbol of your country to do so!

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1017205' date='Jul 4 2006, 03:28 PM']
Am I hearing you say that "expression" should not be protected because that word was not used? What are words but an expression of our thoughts? One can say them, one can write them, one can depict them with pictures, one can use idiomatic phrases or gestures

Analogize constitutional interpretation to biblical interpretation
The constitution was written in the 18th century - newspapers were in their infancy, speech could travel no further than the strength of one's lungs (or the acoustics of the room)
Therefore, television is not protected, the internet is not protected, radio is not protected, messages on T-shirts are not protected, megaphone amplificaton is not protected, sign language for the deaf is not protected
True, the Bill of Rights does not say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of expression" . . . but without the court's adapting the terms used to modern technology, free speech and free press as we conceive of it would be locked in an 18th century model
[/quote]
Freedom of speech and the press simply means that one is free to speak or write one's political opinions freely without government censor.
It does not mean that people can say or do whatever they want whenever they want to, so long as they are "expressing themselves."

Flag-burning is more a form of provocation, than "speech" in the true sense.

In the 1960s, liberal judges began interpreting "free speech" as protecting basically anything that could be considered "self-expression," including public obscenity.

If someone stayed up all night screaming obscene or racist epiphets ate their next-door neighbors, this would technically be "speech" or "expressing oneself," but would such behavior be constitutionally protected, or should the cops be allowed haul the obnoxious person off for disturbing the peace?

"Freedom of speech" has limits which were recognized for most of the country's history, and was not intended to mean that people could say or do absolutely whatever they want, whenever they want, so long as they are "expressing themselves."

Local and state laws concerning flag-burning should be respected by the federal government. There is no reason to have activist federal judges interfering (as they have done with so much else - from prohibiting religious displays to promoting "gay marriage"). That is the real government tyranny.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1017994' date='Jul 5 2006, 08:15 PM']Burning the flag has long been illegal in 47 states. And in those states, it is still perfectly legal to criticize the president (or any other politician or political policy). Legally protecting the flag poses no danger to free political speech. [/quote]
When one boils it all down, I think this is what is left. So the "freedom of speech" argument in support of allowing flag-burning seems weak at best imho. That's not to say it's perfectly reasonable to outlaw it on the basis that the act is offensive, but I tend to be more libertarian that way.

While I agree that burning the flag is about as disrespectful as it gets and empathize with the urge to rebel against such an abominable act, as long as abortion is legal I could care less about legislation protecting a flag that stands for a country that allows such a thing tbh. That's kind of like getting on the Nazi's case for looting a few peices of art while they are gassing Jews. Burning the flag is ultimately harmless, while there are many other major issues that require a heck of a lot more legislative attention. Pick the battles that really count, imo.

Edited July 6, 2006 by hierochloe

[qfnol31]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1017205' date='Jul 4 2006, 04:28 PM']Am I hearing you say that "expression" should not be protected because that word was not used? What are words but an expression of our thoughts? One can say them, one can write them, one can depict them with pictures, one can use idiomatic phrases or gestures.[/quote]



Very much so. If I wanted to go express myself by running naked through the streets, all morality aside, that is protected "expression" according to the ruling on flag-burning laws. If I want to sit there and call pro-life people bigots, that too is a right granted to me by this interpretation of the Constitution. If I want to take a seducing picture of a naked woman and hang it in public, that's allowed under freedom of expression. I'm expressing myself, aren't I? I'm not hurting anyone, though perhaps offending quite a few. But so's flag burning...



I use these very extreme examples to prove against the rule.

[quote]Analogize constitutional interpretation to biblical interpretation
The constitution was written in the 18th century - newspapers were in their infancy, speech could travel no further than the strength of one's lungs (or the acoustics of the room)
Therefore, television is not protected, the internet is not protected, radio is not protected, messages on T-shirts are not protected, megaphone amplificaton is not protected, sign language for the deaf is not protected
True, the Bill of Rights does not say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of expression" . . . but without the court's adapting the terms used to modern technology, free speech and free press as we conceive of it would be locked in an 18th century model[/quote]



Radio and television are both spoken and can be regulated...Only recently were the f-word and the finger allowed on television, but only at certain times, and those shows are rated. Messages on T-shirts are not protected, you're right. In fact that's the very example that was given to me to show how wrong the Supreme Court is today. I'm not sure about the internet, though I know it too is regulated.



You can't take the Constitution as the living document that you want. Did you know that the "bird" has been given since Ancient Greece and before? If you read Diogenes, you'll find an instance of this. They knew then what expression was. Speech, as we know it, is way too broad in its interpretation. Do you want everyone to be free to use the f-word around kids or cuss out God all day? I don't. I think it's terrible!

[quote]Please remember the constitution is intended to govern the government; not the governed. The base document expressly authorizes and empowers certain actions. The Bill of Rights expressly prohibits certain actions.[/quote]



The Supreme Court had no real Constitutional basis for its decisions. However, there were laws in place before their rulings that did govern us and would be in place now were it not for the various different rulings by the different Supreme Courts. I'm very aware of this distinction between the Constitution and laws, but the Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution.

[quote]of course we are, that's the heart of freedom of speech. and when words fail me, and there is no way I can express my shame, my disgust, my antipathy for my elected representatives than to destroy the flag which is the symbol of my country - is that any less a statement because I don't use words?[/quote]



It's not your flag to destroy. It belongs to the country, and therefore you need the country's permission to do with it as you please. It's on loan, please take care of it.

[quote]take 2
The hypothetical did not identify the "owner" of the flag. If I go to WalMart and buy a flag, it is "my" flag (or as Era Might [I lost track, was that you?] keeps saying, my piece of colored cloth). If I wander down to City Hall and "borrow" their flag, it is the City's flag. If I wander onto a federal facility (which is getting harder and harder to do these days) and "borrow" their flag, then it is the property of the United States. If I then burn the City or State or Federal flag, I can be charged with theft of government property; destruction of government property. (and I'll bet they buy their flags at the same place they get the $1000 hammers)
So this is not at all similar to the use of my house (without compensation) to demonstrate proper fire suppression techniques or my face (ugly as it is) to vouch for the marketability of some particular retail product.[/quote]



That's not how it works. You may have bought the flag, but you didn't buy all the rights to it.



When you bought Windows, do you have the right to copy the CD onto all your computers? Or how about your CDs? Have you a right to loan those out to other people to burn? No, and to do that is an evil. Same with all software. This principal applies to the flag as well.

[quote]I said I was verbose . . . L D summarized it in two lines

we both need to be prepared to face the consequences of our behavior[/quote]



I could be wrong, but I think it was an ironic post.



[quote name='Sojourner' post='1017620' date='Jul 5 2006, 01:38 PM']
Really, that's not such a bad position to be in. It's freeing, actually, not to have to follow the whims of a political party ...[/quote]

I agree. They're all just too modern and liberal and self-centered for me.

[journeyman]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1017455' date='Jul 5 2006, 08:30 AM']
I agree with my father. I don't know whether I should be troubled by this or not.
[/quote]










ps

Edited July 7, 2006 by journeyman

[journeyman]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1018057' date='Jul 5 2006, 08:47 PM']
Freedom of speech and the press simply means that one is free to speak or write one's political opinions freely without government censor.
It does not mean that people can say or do whatever they want whenever they want to, so long as they are "expressing themselves."
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]as long as they are "exercising" their opinions, either through speech, or writing, or a substitute for language, the government cannot prevent that exercise - it can only punish behavior that is otherwise illegal . . . merely being improper or offensive is not a basis for exercising the full weight of government's power to punish[/color]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1018057' date='Jul 5 2006, 08:47 PM']
Flag-burning is more a form of provocation, than "speech" in the true sense.

In the 1960s, liberal judges began interpreting "free speech" as protecting basically anything that could be considered "self-expression," including public obscenity.

If someone stayed up all night screaming obscene or racist epiphets ate their next-door neighbors, this would technically be "speech" or "expressing oneself," but would such behavior be constitutionally protected, or should the cops be allowed haul the obnoxious person off for disturbing the peace?
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]I agree it is extremely provocative, especially when directed toward those who recognize the flag as a symbol, perhaps the pre-eminent symbol, of the most daring experiment in self-government in the history of the world
as you say, it would be disturbing the peace - a separate offense which is not speech related[/color]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1018057' date='Jul 5 2006, 08:47 PM']
"Freedom of speech" has limits which were recognized for most of the country's history, and was not intended to mean that people could say or do absolutely whatever they want, whenever they want, so long as they are "expressing themselves."
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]hence, my example earlier that screaming "Fire" in a public building does not protect the speaker from the consequences of their speech . . . just as the libel and slander laws do not protect the speaker from the consequences of their false statements . . .
Yet, at the same time, there is no requirement for accuracy or truth in public debate over public issues, or even public figures (look at elections lately) . . . the founders believed that in the marketplace of ideas, truth would win out in any debate, as long as it was permitted to be expressed [/color]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1018057' date='Jul 5 2006, 08:47 PM']
Local and state laws concerning flag-burning should be respected by the federal government. There is no reason to have activist federal judges interfering (as they have done with so much else - from prohibiting religious displays to promoting "gay marriage"). That is the real government tyranny.
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]and federal law and federal judicial rulings should be respected by the state and local governments when federal issues are implicated and a national interest requires preemption of local concerns - an inherent tension in our form of government - one that is typically resolved only by people of good will and reason[/color]

Edited July 7, 2006 by journeyman

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1018672' date='Jul 6 2006, 07:00 PM']
[color="#3333FF"]as long as they are "exercising" their opinions, either through speech, or writing, or a substitute for language, the government cannot prevent that exercise - it can only punish behavior that is otherwise illegal . . . merely being improper or offensive is not a basis for exercising the full weight of government's power to punish[/color]
[color="#3333FF"]I agree it is extremely provocative, especially when directed toward those who recognize the flag as a symbol, perhaps the pre-eminent symbol, of the most daring experiment in self-government in the history of the world
as you say, it would be disturbing the peace - a separate offense which is not speech related[/color]
[color="#3333FF"]hence, my example earlier that screaming "Fire" in a public building does not protect the speaker from the consequences of their speech . . . just as the libel and slander laws do not protect the speaker from the consequences of their false statements . . .
Yet, at the same time, there is no requirement for accuracy or truth in public debate over public issues, or even public figures (look at elections lately) . . . the founders believed that in the marketplace of ideas, truth would win out in any debate, as long as it was permitted to be expressed [/color]
[color="#3333FF"]and federal law and federal judicial rulings should be respected by the state and local governments when federal issues are implicated and a national interest requires preemption of local concerns - an inherent tension in our form of government - one that is typically resolved only by people of good will and reason[/color]
[/quote]
I believe such issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible - by local or state laws. I'm against federal judges stepping in and declaring flag-burning (or other offensive behavior) "constitutionally protected."
Flag-burning and similar displays cannot "express truth" in a debate in any meaningful way, but are more along the lines of giving the finger.

[journeyman]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1018080' date='Jul 5 2006, 09:29 PM']
Very much so. If I wanted to go express myself by running naked through the streets, all morality aside, that is protected "expression" according to the ruling on flag-burning laws. If I want to sit there and call pro-life people bigots, that too is a right granted to me by this interpretation of the Constitution. If I want to take a seducing picture of a naked woman and hang it in public, that's allowed under freedom of expression. I'm expressing myself, aren't I? I'm not hurting anyone, though perhaps offending quite a few. But so's flag burning...

I use these very extreme examples to prove against the rule.
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]homosexual rights marchers in Philadelphia alleged that pro-life opposition was guilty of "hate speech" and they had to resort to the courts to defend themselves from criminal prosecution
The judge's opinion:
"We’ve got to get back to some basics here," she explained. "We’re one of the very few countries (in the world) that protects unpopular speech ..Many of these messages may be repulsive and offensive, but people are allowed to say (them)."
[url="http://www.delcotimes.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1675&dept_id=18168&newsid=13987074&PAG=461&rfi=9"]Source of Quotation[/url]
[/color]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1018080' date='Jul 5 2006, 09:29 PM']
Radio and television are both spoken and can be regulated...Only recently were the f-word and the finger allowed on television, but only at certain times, and those shows are rated. Messages on T-shirts are not protected, you're right. In fact that's the very example that was given to me to show how wrong the Supreme Court is today. I'm not sure about the internet, though I know it too is regulated.
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]Radio and television are regulated because there are a limited number of frequencies available for use - unlike newspapers (which in colonial times, could spring up on any corner at a minimal cost) - Modern media has much higher barriers to (costs of) entry

The use of that word on radio dates to George Carlin's monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" (Class Clown, 1972) and following a late night replay on radio, the Supreme Court said "Vulgar language, like vulgar animals, may be acceptable in some contexts and intolerable in others." See FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 750 (1978). "Indeed, even ordinary, inoffensive speech may be wholly unacceptable in some settings." See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919); Pacifica, supra, at 744-745.

how does a T-shirt with the words "Choose Life" differ from a placard or a pamphlet with the same words?
[/color]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1018080' date='Jul 5 2006, 09:29 PM']
You can't take the Constitution as the living document that you want. Did you know that the "bird" has been given since Ancient Greece and before? If you read Diogenes, you'll find an instance of this. They knew then what expression was. Speech, as we know it, is way too broad in its interpretation. Do you want everyone to be free to use the f-word around kids or cuss out God all day? I don't. I think it's terrible!
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]Do I want them to do so, no . . . I agree it is disrespectful, obnoxious . . . and ultimately, it is boring. . . . In a free society, I have the right to remove my self and my children from such conduct, but not to use the compulsion of state sponsored force to impose my point of view on others. [/color]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1018080' date='Jul 5 2006, 09:29 PM']
The Supreme Court had no real Constitutional basis for its decisions. However, there were laws in place before their rulings that did govern us and would be in place now were it not for the various different rulings by the different Supreme Courts. I'm very aware of this distinction between the Constitution and laws, but the Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution.
[/quote]

[color="#3333FF"]
There is a relatively straightforward basis. The Bill of Rights to the Constitution states Congress shall make no law . . . the 14th Amendment extends those prohibitions to state governments.
One of the flag burning cases was Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969), in which Street went on a street corner and burned a flag he owned after hearing of the death of a civil rights advocate.
In that case, Street was charged with an ordinance which made it illegal to mutilate or “publicly [to] defy . . . or cast contempt upon [any American flag] either by words or act.” The words according the both the defendant and the police officer were: “If they let that happen to Meredith, we don't need an American flag." There were other words alleged, but the court did not address the veracity of the witnesses during the appeal.
The conviction was overturned because the ordinance did not specify what "words" (words that in this context were entitled to free speech protection) would "cast contempt" on the flag.
A criminal statute has to clearly identify the prohibited behavior . . . and the New York ordinance did not.
It seems fair to say the court had to "reach" a little to get to its decision . . . 5-4 decisions are subject to reversal in the future . . . but it ducked having to actually decide whether flag burning was speech . . . that is too simplistic a test . . . the context of an "expression" is critical to a determination of whether or not it was done for a protected purpose or not - black and white rules remove context [/color]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1018080' date='Jul 5 2006, 09:29 PM']
It's not your flag to destroy. It belongs to the country, and therefore you need the country's permission to do with it as you please. It's on loan, please take care of it.

That's not how it works. You may have bought the flag, but you didn't buy all the rights to it.

When you bought Windows, do you have the right to copy the CD onto all your computers? Or how about your CDs? Have you a right to loan those out to other people to burn? No, and to do that is an evil. Same with all software. This principal applies to the flag as well.
[/quote]
[color="#3333FF"]

Your viewpoint was voiced by Justice Fortas in dissent in Street:
"Beyond this, however, the flag is a special kind of personalty. Its use is traditionally and universally subject to special rules and regulation. As early as 1907, this Court affirmed the constitutionality of a state statute making it a crime to use a representation of the United States flag for purposes of advertising. Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907). Statutes prescribe how the flag may be displayed; how it may lawfully be disposed of; when, how, and for what purposes it may and may not be used. See, e.g., 4 U.S.C. § 3; 56 Stat. 377, c. 435, 36 U.S.C. §§ 172-177. A person may “own” a flag, but ownership is subject to special burdens and responsibilities. A flag may be property, in a sense; but it is property burdened with peculiar obligations and restrictions. Certainly, as Halter v. Nebraska, supra, held, these special conditions are not per se arbitrary or beyond governmental power under our Constitution.

One may not justify burning a house, even if it is his own, on the ground, however sincere, that he does so as a protest. One may not justify breaking the windows of a government building on that basis. Protest does not exonerate lawlessness. And the prohibition against flag burning on the public thoroughfare being valid, the misdemeanor is not excused merely because it is an act of flamboyant protest."

Common sense says that an action that is contrary to societal norms carries consequences. Common sense says igniting any material may cause a larger fire than intended (last year's park ranger burning a letter, which resulted in thousands of acres of national forest being burned is an example) or may cause a traffic accident as people rubberneck your actions instead of paying attention to their driving

The flag I bought in Wal-Mart doesn't come with a "shrink wrap" license. Windows does. [/color]

[journeyman]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1018682' date='Jul 6 2006, 07:09 PM']
I believe such issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible - by local or state laws. I'm against federal judges stepping in and declaring flag-burning (or other offensive behavior) "constitutionally protected."
Flag-burning and similar displays cannot "express truth" in a debate in any meaningful way, but are more along the lines of giving the finger.
[/quote]

I prefer lowest possible level decision making as well. Laws govern a community, and the interests of a community in northern Virginia are not always the same as the interests of a community in western or southern Virginia.

The Virginia General Assembly would be the appropriate legislative body for laws regarding the flag of the Commonwealth. California, Maine, and Florida need not apply. What is the appropriate legislature for the flag which is the symbol of the United States of America? The lowest level applicable to people in California, Virginia, Maine and Florida is, sad to say, the United States Congress, a deliberative body which has not, in recent years, lived up to its name.

I agree that burning a flag does not advance the dialogue of ideas - just as certain finger gestures are doomed to lower the level of the dialogue to one of name calling - but it is still a statement - to put it in its best possible light, it is the equivalent of "words fail me."

[toledo_jesus]

all that law school did you some good dad.