Flag burning

[Era Might]

You can't say that burning a flag, in itself, is a sin against the virtue of Patriotism, because there is nothing intrinsically special about the American flag. A sin against Patriotism would have to be based on intent, and you can't judge intent on the burning of a flag alone. I can imagine a scenario, for example, where someone in my state burned the flag of Massachusetts to express its descent into general Godlessness (gay marriage, for example). I wouldn't do that personally, for reasons I have already explained, but I can see it happening legitimately by way of protest. I wouldn't take it, by itself, as a sign that the person wanted to destroy Massachusetts, but as a symbol that the dross needs to be burned away and the state rebuilt on moral foundations.

As for whether the Constitution protects flag burning as free speech, you're right that it's a separate question. Personally, I don't care what the constitution says. I look at everything through the lens of what I think it should be, and go from there. If the constitution happens to agree with me, then my argument will be easier, of course. But I don't disagree that judges shouldn't be advancing their pet causes, because their job is to interpret the constitution. My job as a citizen is to change the constitution as I see fit. Of course, whether the judges ARE wrongly interpreting the Constitution here is up for debate.

[journeyman]

But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views. The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (holding that Johnson's conviction for burning the American flag violates the First Amendment); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam) (holding that a Ku Klux Klan leader's conviction for advocating unlawfulness as a means of political reform violates the First Amendment). And the fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660 (2000)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1016356' date='Jul 2 2006, 07:10 PM']
You can't say that burning a flag, in itself, is a sin against the virtue of Patriotism, because there is nothing intrinsically special about the American flag. A sin against Patriotism would have to be based on intent, and you can't judge intent on the burning of a flag alone. I can imagine a scenario, for example, where someone in my state burned the flag of Massachusetts to express its descent into general Godlessness (gay marriage, for example). I wouldn't do that personally, for reasons I have already explained, but I can see it happening legitimately by way of protest. I wouldn't take it, by itself, as a sign that the person wanted to destroy Massachusetts, but as a symbol that the dross needs to be burned away and the state rebuilt on moral foundations.
[/quote]
The American flag has for well over 200 years symbolized the United States of America, and has had very specific protocol concerning its proper use and treatment. Burning the flag is universally understood as defying this protocol, and showing disrespect for America. The intent is clearly expressed and understood in this action. If you respect the flag, and by extension the country it represents, you do not burn it. The fact that this action is understood as disrepectful, is the reason people do it. If the flag and its burning were so meaningless as you imply, the flag burning would not have its desired effect.
Claiming that one is intending something else by performing an action universally recognized as disrepecting this country is rather nonsensical. Unless the flag is burned by accident, or the person is in the unlikely condition of being totally ignorant of the symbolism of the U.S. flag, the meaning of this action is clear.
To return the crucifix example, a patriotic American would no sooner burn a flag than a devout Catholic would deface a crucifix (or burn a Vatican flag). And making some excuse that he was simply doing this to protest wayward bishops in the Church no living up to Catholic ideals would be equally absurd.

[quote]As for whether the Constitution protects flag burning as free speech, you're right that it's a separate question. Personally, I don't care what the constitution says. I look at everything through the lens of what I think it should be, and go from there. If the constitution happens to agree with me, then my argument will be easier, of course. But I don't disagree that judges shouldn't be advancing their pet causes, because their job is to interpret the constitution. My job as a citizen is to change the constitution as I see fit. Of course, whether the judges ARE wrongly interpreting the Constitution here is up for debate.[/quote]
The whole point of having a national constitution is to place checks on government power and have a universally recognized standard of law, in order to prevent everyone in government from simply doing things how "they think it should be." (Though, of course, its success in this has been limited).
The problem is liberal judges have been "changing the constitution as they see fit" for many years now, with disasterous results, including such things as abortion and "gay marriage" as a "constitutional rights". The Constitution is not perfect, but if actually followed correctly, it would provide a check on judges simply changing (or "reinterpreting") the law to fit their own ideological agendas.
The problem is there are lots of people wanting to change the law as they see fit, and very few of them are doing so from a genuinely Catholic moral perspective. Better to follow the Constitution as originally written, than have the unchecked legal free-for-all we are now seeing.

[journeyman]

Justice Thomas and Scalia in dissent:

I do not start with these foundational principles because the Court openly disagrees with them — it could not, for they are solidly embedded in our precedents. See, e.g., Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989) (“[T]he First Amendment ‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office” (quoting Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272 (1971))); Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45, 53 (1982) (“The free exchange of ideas provides special vitality to the process traditionally at the heart of American constitutional democracy — the political campaign”); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964) (“[S]peech concerning public affairs is . . . the essence of self-government”). Instead, I start with them because the Court today abandons them. For nearly half a century, this Court has extended First Amendment protection to a multitude of forms of [Page 412] “speech,” such as making false defamatory statements, filing lawsuits, dancing nude, exhibiting drive-in movies with nudity, burning flags, and wearing military uniforms.1 Not surprisingly, the Courts of Appeals have followed our lead and concluded that the First Amendment protects, for example, begging, shouting obscenities, erecting tables on a sidewalk, and refusing to wear a necktie.2 In light of the many cases of this sort, today's decision is a most curious anomaly. Whatever the proper status of such activities under the First Amendment, I am confident that they are less integral to the functioning of our Republic than campaign contributions. Yet the majority today, rather than going out of its way to protect political speech, goes out of its way to avoid protecting it. As I explain below, contributions to political campaigns generate essential political speech. And contribution caps, which place a direct and substantial limit on core speech, should be met with the utmost skepticism and should receive the strictest scrutiny.

Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 411-412 (2000)

[Era Might]

Again, just because some people see the burning of a flag one way doesn't mean burning a flag can't mean something else. Most people who burn a flag DO intend to say the hate America. But if we're not gonna punish them for verbally saying they hate America, then there is no basis for punishing them for burning a piece of clothe, which can mean anything in itself. You can assume what it means for them, but that is nothing more than assumption.

You keep throwing a crucifix out there, but you are comparing apples and oranges. It is NEVER ok to desecrate a crucifix. A flag is not a religious symbol. It represents a temporal empire, not God. Burning it can mean anything, from you hate America to you are protesting the holocaust of abortion to whatever.

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1016371' date='Jul 2 2006, 07:49 PM']
But this is scarcely an argument for denying First Amendment protection to those who refuse to accept these views. The First Amendment protects expression, be it of the popular variety or not. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (holding that Johnson's conviction for burning the American flag violates the First Amendment); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam) (holding that a Ku Klux Klan leader's conviction for advocating unlawfulness as a means of political reform violates the First Amendment). And the fact that an idea may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660 (2000)
[/quote]
Post-1960s rulings by activist federal judges.

[journeyman]

Justice Thomas and Scalia continue to dissent:

What we are now left with, if we are to take the majority opinion at face value, is one of two disturbing consequences: Either (1) paying for advertising is not speech at all, while such activities as draft card burning, flag burning, armband wearing, public sleeping, and nude dancing are,4 or (2) compelling payment for third-party communication does not implicate speech, and thus the Government would be free to force payment for a whole variety of expressive conduct that it could not restrict. In either case, surely we have lost our way.

4 See United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (draft card burning); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (flag burning); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) (armbands); Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984) (prohibition on sleeping in park raises First Amendment issues); Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981) (nude dancing).

Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U.S. 457, 506 (1997)

Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U.S. 457, 506 (1997)

[quote name='Socrates' post='1016376' date='Jul 2 2006, 07:55 PM']
Post-1960s rulings by activist federal judges.
[/quote]


The operative law of the nation as established by its highest court

(that makes it a 4th Commandment issue?)

[hierochloe]

I had the opportunity to ask a friend of mine on active duty in the Air Force, two tours in Bagdad, what was his opinion on this. He told me that truthfully he would rather it not be regulated through a constitutional ammendment. He said he would rather people be allowed to do it so when some knucklehead flag-burner cleans up and runs for political office, there's past performance to indicate of how patriotic they really are when the media exposes their past escapades. I hadn't thought of that one.

It does bother me when people burn the flag yet it upsets me far more to learn about people cheating on their taxes, exploiting gov't assistance, etc - these offenses are exponentially worse than some nit-wit burning a flag. I think it's a disgusting and shameful gesture to burn the American flag but I don't support the need for an ammendment against it any more than I would support an ammendment against public prayer. Although, given our SC's love for dumb-A interpretations of the constitution, I could be swayed.

From a practical standpoint, lighting things on fire at heated rallies is about as safe as firearms and det-cord at a red-neck kegger in the woods. Obviously it's illegal in 47 states or whatever and it makes no sense whatsoever to force legality of the act. Doesn't matter if it's speech or not. And if it is speech that MUST be protected no matter WHAT, then my right to speech in the form of kicking flag-burners in the head before they catch the neighborhood on fire should be protected as well.

And yes, the hypocrisy surrounding this issue... if I were to go around buring flags with rainbows I can only imagine the rabble-rabble.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1016375' date='Jul 2 2006, 07:55 PM']
Again, just because some people see the burning of a flag one way doesn't mean burning a flag can't mean something else. Most people who burn a flag DO intend to say the hate America. But if we're not gonna punish them for verbally saying they hate America, then there is no basis for punishing them for burning a piece of clothe, which can mean anything in itself. You can assume what it means for them, but that is nothing more than assumption.

You keep throwing a crucifix out there, but you are comparing apples and oranges. It is NEVER ok to desecrate a crucifix. A flag is not a religious symbol. It represents a temporal empire, not God. Burning it can mean anything, from you hate America to you are protesting the holocaust of abortion to whatever.
[/quote]
The reason I keep throwing crucifixes in here is because you seem to make the absurd denial that the American flag (or its burning) has any intrinsic meaning.
Yes, religious symbols are more sacred than secular symbols, yet both are symbols universally recognized to represent things greater than themselves. I find it hard to believe that you cannot see this.
The American flag is not some arbitrary and ambigious design, but is universally recognized and established as representing the United States of America. Improperly burning the flag, according to long-established protocol, is to disrepect it.

To go back once again to the crucifix example, this is like saying that defacing a crucifix has no intrinsic meaning, or that this does not necessarily mean contempt for Christ or his Church. "Defacing the crucifix can mean anything, from you hate Christ to you are protesting homosexual priests to whatever. There is no basis for punishing them for defacing a piece of wood, which can mean anything in itself. You can assume what it means for them, but that is nothing more than assumption."

Again, I am not arguing that flag-burning is the same level of evil as defacing a crucifix, but making a point about universally-recognized symbols. Your argument that burning a flag has no intrinsic meaning falls flat.

[journeyman]

(for the purposes of this discussion, let's not equate a respectful flag disposal ceremony with "flag burning."


Few actions carry more visceral reactions than

burning a flag in front a a decorated military veteran
burning a cross in front of an American of African descent
elevating one's central finger while speaking of pork products in front of a law enforcement officer

Not a harsh word is spoken - but a message is delivered . . . how could it not be speech?

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1016383' date='Jul 2 2006, 08:09 PM']
(for the purposes of this discussion, let's not equate a respectful flag disposal ceremony with "flag burning."
Few actions carry more visceral reactions than

burning a flag in front a a decorated military veteran
burning a cross in front of an American of African descent
elevating one's central finger while speaking of pork products in front of a law enforcement officer

Not a harsh word is spoken - but a message is delivered . . . how could it not be speech?
[/quote]
Are you arguing that performing each of these actions should be protected by federal law?

[journeyman]

unfortunately, since I don't approve of any of them, yes

The exception to "free" speech is best exemplified by the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example . . .

You have a protected right to do it . . . but you will face consequences

As the cases quoted make clear, any number of "non-verbal" communications are covered by the First Amendment prohibition against prior restraint . . . and that's what legislation would be . . . a form of prior restraint

In the second example, legislation was crafted to restrain such behavior - it's called "hate speech" and is now being used against "pro-life" protestors and Christian evangelists (among others)

In the third example, if you survive the beating, and have a video camera, you may be able to sue for damages arising from excessive use of force . . . but is spending the rest of your life requiring medical care really worth it?

[Era Might]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1016382' date='Jul 2 2006, 10:09 PM']The reason I keep throwing crucifixes in here is because you seem to make the absurd denial that the American flag (or its burning) has any intrinsic meaning.
[/quote]
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.

[journeyman]

actually, the better way to phrase the question is not should it be protected speech, but can the government pass a law prohibiting the speech before it is "uttered" acted upon?

[zwergel88]

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.

[Lounge Daddy]

if you wanna burn a flag - ok
if I wanna kick your a** for doing so... ok

God bless America:: home of the free

[qfnol31]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='1016422' date='Jul 2 2006, 10:38 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]



But the problem is that the Supreme Court is wrong and so is the view that they espouse. Flag burning and expression are not part of the Constitution, but only the misinterpretation of the Constitution.



We're allowed to disagree with them all of the time, also. If not, well, we wouldn't be able to argue against Roe vs. Wade. Even Presidents (sometimes un-wisely) have disagreed with them. Many of their recent rulings are downright scary. I think it's great, at least from what I can tell, that Scalia has a grasp on this issue.



We don't have the right to the flag to do with as we please, because it is the nation's. If it was yours, you do what you like. But it isn't right to use the property of another to prove a point, even if it is a good one. You wouldn't want someone to use your house as an example, would you? Or your good name?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1016514' date='Jul 3 2006, 05:38 AM']
if you wanna burn a flag - ok
if I wanna kick your a** for doing so... ok

God bless America:: home of the free
[/quote]

haha , but free speech is protected in this country. Assault not as much so .

[journeyman]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1016934' date='Jul 3 2006, 08:12 PM']
But the problem is that the Supreme Court is wrong and so is the view that they espouse. Flag burning and expression are not part of the Constitution, but only the misinterpretation of the Constitution.
[/quote]

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

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 name='qfnol31' post='1016934' date='Jul 3 2006, 08:12 PM']
We're allowed to disagree with them all of the time, also. If not, well, we wouldn't be able to argue against Roe vs. Wade. Even Presidents (sometimes un-wisely) have disagreed with them. Many of their recent rulings are downright scary. I think it's great, at least from what I can tell, that Scalia has a grasp on this issue.
[/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 name='qfnol31' post='1016934' date='Jul 3 2006, 08:12 PM']
We don't have the right to the flag to do with as we please, because it is the nation's. If it was yours, you do what you like. But it isn't right to use the property of another to prove a point, even if it is a good one. You wouldn't want someone to use your house as an example, would you? Or your good name?
[/quote]

The flag is a symbol of the nation. Because I honor the principles on which this country was founded, because I honor her sons and daughters who fought and died so that I could have this discussion, beause I just can't imagine losing the rights and privileges I take for granted as a citizen of the United States . . . I can't imagine ever being at such a loss for words that the only statement I could make involves burning the flag. But (as many people have told me), I tend toward the verbose.
Just as the Church is people in communion - so is the nation. (I'm nowhere near where I meant to go with this)

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 name='Lounge Daddy' date='Jul 3 2006, 05:38 AM']
if you wanna burn a flag - ok
if I wanna kick your a** for doing so... ok
[/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

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1017205' date='Jul 4 2006, 05:28 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

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.

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?
The flag is a symbol of the nation. Because I honor the principles on which this country was founded, because I honor her sons and daughters who fought and died so that I could have this discussion, beause I just can't imagine losing the rights and privileges I take for granted as a citizen of the United States . . . I can't imagine ever being at such a loss for words that the only statement I could make involves burning the flag. But (as many people have told me), I tend toward the verbose.
Just as the Church is people in communion - so is the nation. (I'm nowhere near where I meant to go with this)

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.
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 agree with my father. I don't know whether I should be troubled by this or not.