Flag burning

[toledo_jesus]

so sorry, if the flag burning isn't causing imminent physical danger than it is protected speech.

The first amendment is ALL about protecting speech we DON'T like. MORE legislation is NOT good.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1014462' date='Jun 29 2006, 09:09 AM']
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. [/quote]

That only works by the same logic that allows women to have abortions...That ruling too is a gross misinterpretation of the law. I don't say this because the people who think flag burning is allowed by the Constitution are for abortion, but rather that the court that ruled it Constitutional (or any law prohibiting the free practice thereof, et cetera) made the same mistake there that it did when it ruled that all laws prohibiting abortion are un-Constitutional. They were wrong, and are wrong.

It was wrong for the Supreme Court to include such actions in the realm of speech, regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong. This is one of the few things I learned well from my politics class. We have a right to freedom of speech and press, not anything else. It's not fair for us to impose any modern (and especially those that are grossly wrong) interpretations on the Constitution. It leads to a mess. If you want an example that is close to home, we have a freedom of religion. Was it fair for the Supreme Court to take that to mean we have freedom from religion? Washington used to use God in his speeches......

[quote name='toledo_jesus' post='1014499' date='Jun 29 2006, 09:58 AM'] so sorry, if the flag burning isn't causing imminent physical danger than it is protected speech.

The first amendment is ALL about protecting speech we DON'T like. MORE legislation is NOT good. [/quote]

But

1) It isn't speech.
2) It's not technically legislation.
3) I think everyone on here would be upset about any Amendment idea except those banning homosexual unions.


Has anyone here actually properly retired a flag?

I have.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1014586' date='Jun 29 2006, 02:10 PM']
That only works by the same logic that allows women to have abortions...That ruling too is a gross misinterpretation of the law. I don't say this because the people who think flag burning is allowed by the Constitution are for abortion, but rather that the court that ruled it Constitutional (or any law prohibiting the free practice thereof, et cetera) made the same mistake there that it did when it ruled that all laws prohibiting abortion are un-Constitutional. They were wrong, and are wrong.

It was wrong for the Supreme Court to include such actions in the realm of speech, regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong. This is one of the few things I learned well from my politics class. We have a right to freedom of speech and press, not anything else. It's not fair for us to impose any modern (and especially those that are grossly wrong) interpretations on the Constitution. It leads to a mess. If you want an example that is close to home, we have a freedom of religion. Was it fair for the Supreme Court to take that to mean we have freedom from religion? Washington used to use God in his speeches......
[/quote]
OK, how about we stick to flag burning, since this is about flag burning. Let's save the discussion of abortion, or freedom of religion/freedom from religion for another time. Focus in on the topic at hand.

And let's see if you can't come up with something besides "They're wrong" to explain why the term "speech" shouldn't encompass more than vocalization. I've provided a number of examples from outside legal realms in which "speech" is used to describe a variety of forms of expression. I think the onus is on you in this case to prove that the founding fathers weren't aware of the variety of expressions the term "speech" should encompass AND that they intended to only cover speech, not other forms of expression.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1014613' date='Jun 29 2006, 01:11 PM']
OK, how about we stick to flag burning, since this is about flag burning. Let's save the discussion of abortion, or freedom of religion/freedom from religion for another time. Focus in on the topic at hand.


[/quote]

Good luck with that one Abby

[Socrates]

There's so much that could be said here, I hardly know where to start.

1) First of all, flag-burning is not speech, protected by the first amendment. It is the desecration of a symbol of the United States of America. It is an action which should disgust and offend every American who loves his country.
"Speech" means words spoken or written. The ridiculous modern mis-interpretation of the first amendment free speech clause to legally protect any offensive action or display is an invention of 1960s liberalism.

2) Whether or not a constitutional amendment should be made concerning flag-burning can be debated. However, for most of our country's history, there would have been absolutely no need for any constitutional amendment, as absolutely no American would have regarded desecration of our country's flag as something constitutionally protected. That is the nonsense of liberal judges. Anyone burning or otherwise desecrating Old Glory would have been regarded as a traitor, and have been likely, at least, to have been tarred and feathered. No bleeding-heart ACLU lawyers would have come to his defense.

[Era Might]

"Old Glory" is just a piece of clothe. It is not a relic. It is not a religious symbol. I have no emotional attachment to it.

That's partly why burning it is so lame. Big deal? If you want to express your disagreement with the United States, do something useful.

[Socrates]

[quote name='track2004' post='1014093' date='Jun 28 2006, 04:29 PM']
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.
[/quote]
The flag the symbol of our country, of America. Burning an American flag is an expression of hatred and contempt for America - for all America. It is quite different from things such as criticism of the current president or current American policy. It is not speech, but desecration of a symbol precious to all patriotic Americans.
It is analogous to pissing on crucifix. (This action would be much worse than buring a flag, of course, but it is the same idea.)
And if anybody hates America that much, quite frankly, they have no business living here.

[quote name='Era Might' post='1014713' date='Jun 29 2006, 04:40 PM']
"Old Glory" is just a piece of clothe. It is not a relic. It is not a religious symbol. I have no emotional attachment to it.
[/quote]
Old glory is more than "just a piece of cloth." It is a symbol of our country, of American ideals, something for which men have fought and given their lives for.
Saying the flag of one's country is "just a piece of cloth" is akin to saying the crucifix is "just a piece of wood (or metal)." (Again, no to equate the two) Symbols have meaning. Whether you happen to have emotional attachment to it or not is beside the point.

[Era Might]

If we can tolerate people verbally saying how much they hate America, I'm not gonna get in a hissy fit because they burn a piece of clothe.

People burn clothe every day. There is nothing intrinsically special about an American flag. If we defend someone's right to say how much they hate America, who cares if they doing something concrete to express that? Burning a flag may not be "speech" in itself, but if we're gonna allow people to say they hate America, then the logical next step is to allow them to burn a piece of clothe as well. An American flag doesn't come with a blessing from the Pope. Anyone who wears it will not be saved from hell. It was not given by the Immaculate Conception. It's a piece of clothe that represents a temporal empire.

Blaspheming God or his Church is never ok. Saying you hate an empire is not wrong in itself ("Babylon has fallen, the great whore" and all that).

Why does someone have to agree with American ideals? If I believe America should become a constitutional monarchy, am I no longer American? America is not an eternal principle. It's a temporal empire. An empire I happen to like and love, but a temporal empire nonetheless. I won't defend it like it's my Church or my God.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1014462' date='Jun 29 2006, 08:09 AM']
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.
[/quote]
Ok, back to the main point. As I've said, this legal interpretation of "speech" is an invention of the 1960s. By this interpretation, pretty much any disgusting action or display can be defended as "freedom of speech."
If burning a flag is can be defended as constitutionally-protected "speech," what about homosexual activists disrupting mass and pissing on an altar to protest Catholic moral teaching? Does "freedom of speech" mean people have the "constitutional right" to prance about naked in public streets, or urinate and defecate in public? To perform sexual acts in public? To display pornography anywhere they choose? To stand on a crowded street corner and scream out obscenities or offensive racial epiphets at passerbies? Certain liberal lawyers and judges have said as much.

Interestingly, while liberals would hold this interpretation of "freedom of speech" to be absolute and inviable, irrespective of the rights of others and the common good, often these same liberals have no problem ruling against Christian displays and such in public on the grounds that they "offend non-Christians." Many also have no problem with strict "hate-code" rules on college campuses and such.

The liberal line of thought often appears to be: Obscenity, anti-Americanism=free speech= good
Religious speech=bad.

I know I'm going to be accused of going off topic here, but these are important points to consider when discussing this topic.

Also, it's interesting to note that some of the same liberal-minded folk who are here claiming that flag-burning is a constitutional right which must be protected, earlier this year were defending a state government's censoring an employee's "religious" holiday displays.

The two-faced hypocrisy and contempt for common decency of liberals is absolutely sickening. Shame on all phatmassers who buy into this carp.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Socrates

[Era Might]

Socrates,

Sexual licentiousness is always morally wrong.

Burning the flag of a country to disagree with it is not. You and I would probably agree that it's pretty stupid to burn an American flag in effigy, because America is at root a good nation. But it's not contrary to the moral law to do so (as it is with blasphemy and homosexual displays). If people think America is an evil nation, whatever. I disagree with them, but it's not contrary to the moral law to think so. Yes, freedom of speech must be discerning and make distinctions.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1014723' date='Jun 29 2006, 05:03 PM']
If we can tolerate people verbally saying how much they hate America, I'm not gonna get in a hissy fit because they burn a piece of clothe.

People burn clothe every day. There is nothing intrinsically special about an American flag. If we defend someone's right to say how much they hate America, who cares if they doing something concrete to express that? Burning a flag may not be "speech" in itself, but if we're gonna allow people to say they hate America, then the logical next step is to allow them to burn a piece of clothe as well. An American flag doesn't come with a blessing from the Pope. Anyone who wears it will not be saved from hell. It was not given by the Immaculate Conception. It's a piece of clothe that represents a temporal empire.

Blaspheming God or his Church is never ok. Saying you hate an empire is not wrong in itself ("Babylon has fallen, the great whore" and all that).

Why does someone have to agree with American ideals? If I believe America should become a constitutional monarchy, am I no longer American? America is not an eternal principle. It's a temporal empire. An empire I happen to like and love, but a temporal empire nonetheless. I won't defend it like it's my Church or my God.
[/quote]
You seem to be completely missing my point. My point is not that burning a flag is morally at the same level as blasphemy. (I knew people were going to argue against me this way, which is why I pointed out that I was not equating the two.)
My point is that saying this is all no big deal because the flag is "just a piece of cloth" is ridiculous. It is symbolic of much more. (I suggest you go to member of the armed forces and tell him the flag is "nothing but a piece of cloth" - see how he acts.) The flag may not mean much to you, but it means much to millions of patriotic Americans, including those who have fought and bled to defend what this flag stands for.

The point is not that America is divine, or on the same level as God, but that symbols have meaning.
Just as a crucifix symbolizes Christ and His Church, so the flag symbolizes America.

Just as Catholics would be rightly offended by the desecration of a crucifix, so patriotic Americans are offended at the desecration of the flag of their country.

And this thread was originally about American law, not about the morality of flag-burning vs. crucifix burning. My point is that the desecration of symbols is not constitutionally protected"speech."

[Era Might]

Well, we'll have to disagree. The flag is a piece of clothe. There is nothing wrong with burning clothe, people do it every day. Unless we're gonna make it illegal to say you hate America, I don't see how doing something like burning a flag is any worse than verbally saying so. The only argument is that it's "disrespectful" to say you hate America, but if actually saying so carries no penalty, why should burning a piece of clothe?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1014732' date='Jun 29 2006, 05:18 PM']
Socrates,

Sexual licentiousness is always morally wrong.

Burning the flag of a country to disagree with it is not. You and I would probably agree that it's pretty stupid to burn an American flag in effigy, because America is at root a good nation. But it's not contrary to the moral law to do so (as it is with blasphemy and homosexual displays). If people think America is an evil nation, whatever. I disagree with them, but it's not contrary to the moral law to think so. Yes, freedom of speech must be discerning and make distinctions.
[/quote]
As I said, this is about American law.
Unfortunately, perhaps, our country is not a Catholic theocracy. If flag-burning is regarded as constitutionally-protected speech, so would crucifix-desecration.
It is highly unlikely that the law in this country would make distinctions between the two.

My point is that the interpretation of "free-speech" to mean any actions done to provoke or offend others is absurd.
Neo-pagans may argue that there is nothing wrong with moral licentiousness, and that opposition to it is just religious folk trying to "force their morality" on others.
They are wrong, of course, but legally, it is unlikely your proposal would require America become a theocratic nation. (Perhaps a worthy goal, but unlikely to occur any time soon.)

Flag-burning, desecration of religious symbols, racist displays, and public obscenity, are all things would deeply offend large parts at least of the American public.
The question here should be: at what point does one's "right" to "free speech" interfere with the right of other people not to put up with offensive speech or dislays?

Try this one; if someone runs around screaming offensive racial epiphets at people who are racial minorities, does his constitutional "freedom of speech" protect him from other people acting to put a stop to his offensive behavior? If a cop hauled him away for his offensive, beligerent behavior, could he argue his behavior is protected by free speech as long as was not physically harming anyone?
I think most people, when pressed, would agree "free speech" has limits. The question is where they are drawn.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Socrates

[Era Might]

No, I don't think America should become a "theocracy", but it should use the moral law as the measuring stick for its decisions.

You're right that others might use fine distinctions to justify their immoral life, and that's an important point. Somebody's point of view has to win. It's either ours or theirs.

[quote]Flag-burning, desecration of religious symbols, racist displays, and public obscenity, are all things would deeply offend large parts at least of the American public.
The question here should be: at what point does one's "right" to "free speech" interfere with the right of other people not to put up with offensive speech or dislays?[/quote]
I don't think you can equate burning a flag with those other examples, for the reasons I explained above.

BUT, I think you make a legitimate point that the sensibilities of the majority should be respected. Ultimately, though, I think it will backfire. I don't think you can base law on majority sensibilities, because the majority sensibility may or may not be grounded in moral law. The majority may be offended by something, but to suppress that something may be a burden that is not imposed by moral law itself. I guess you can argue that prudence would still recommend it, but when the majority sensibility turns against you, so will the law.

On the other hand, when the law is based on moral principles, and not majority sensibility, then you won't have to grant others a right to rule against you once the majority sensibility changes in their favor. You can stand on the moral law, just as you did before, and remain consistent. If they say you have to allow them to desecrate the Eucharist, because the majority approves, you can say no, the majority sensibility didn't rule the day when it was in my favor, and it won't rule the day now. Moral law must always guide our society.

If you suppress the burning of the flag because it offends the majority sensibility, then you'll have to suppress something good if the majority sensibility grows to dislike it (such as religion, for example). Otherwise, you're not being consistent. But if you always defer to the moral law, you can defer to it when the majority opinion is and is not in your favor. There is no inconsistency there.

Edited June 30, 2006 by Era Might

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Sojourner' post='1014613' date='Jun 29 2006, 01:11 PM']OK, how about we stick to flag burning, since this is about flag burning. Let's save the discussion of abortion, or freedom of religion/freedom from religion for another time. Focus in on the topic at hand.[/quote]

I was addressing it at hand by drawing an analogy. I brought those two examples up, not to discuss them, but to show how these are both connected and to give an example that people here relate to.

I never wanted to sidetrack the conversation but since this is your thread I shall respect the idea of sticking solely to this topic without any outside analogies.

[quote]And let's see if you can't come up with something besides "They're wrong" to explain why the term "speech" shouldn't encompass more than vocalization. I've provided a number of examples from outside legal realms in which "speech" is used to describe a variety of forms of expression. I think the onus is on you in this case to prove that the founding fathers weren't aware of the variety of expressions the term "speech" should encompass AND that they intended to only cover speech, not other forms of expression.[/quote]

My politics department teaches it.

Besides, if everyone here falls into the trap of "It's freedom of speech" then I really give any reasons why they're wrong because no one will even admit room for error in the first place. If no one will admit to the fact that it's not protected, then I can't discuss it because no one will be willing to listen.

However, it is wrong because it has been outlawed by, I believe, 47 states (See here: [url="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/flagburning/topic.aspx?topic=flag_statelaws)"]http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech...flag_statelaws)[/url]. Contrary to the Supreme Court which is blatently wrong (as they are so often, it seems, with respect to "rights" of citizens), this is a just law that does not contradict anything in the moral law. Also, it is supposed to teach respect for the state, and since the state has the flag, it is not right for us to use it as though it is our own.

I hope you forgive me, but I'm about to use a great work analogy. I work at a Barnes and Noble Café where we sell Starbucks coffee. This may not seem important to you, but we are not a Starbucks. Our only connection to them is our coffee and iced teas. We have our own pastries, we have Cheesecake Factory cheesecake, we have IBC rootbeer, and we have Godiva chocolate. Starbucks has none of that. We are owned and employed by Barnes and Noble. We pay Starbucks to use the logo and their coffee, at which point it becomes ours, but that does not make us Starbucks ourselves. When we sell their coffee, we must live up to certain standards. We are required to make the coffee brewed fresh (every two hours), nothing can be held longer than it is good for (each syrup lasts for one month) and we must make everything according to their recipes.

How does this relate? Quite simply. We are not allowed to desecrate the Starbucks logo because that is theirs. It is not fair for us to associate bad things with their logo because it is theirs. The same holds true with the flag. We are not the owners of that flag to do with as we please, even if we did purchase it. When you buy it, you enter into a contract with the state (unless you are in Wyoming, Alaska, or maybe Wisconsin, not sure about this last one) and the nation not to desecrate the symbol of that nation because it is not yours alone. You do not have the rights to that flag as though it is just a freedom of speech. It cannot be considered free speech because it is not yourself which you use, but rather the image of a country.

Plus, is it not illegal to slander or write libel in this country? That is because it is unfair treatment of someone/something that is other than yourself. If the flag was ours and there was no set rules, then it'd be different. As it stands, it is the symbol of the nation, and as such, the nation has sole rights to how it should be treated.

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1014654' date='Jun 29 2006, 03:02 PM']Good luck with that one Abby[/quote]

Oui, I don't like talking about the topics of threads I post in...I just post to derail the conversation.