Not That I Recommend This...

[billroper]

Far be it from me to suggest that burning the U.S. flag is a good idea (other than in a respectful disposal of a worn flag), but I am happy to report that the proposed Constitutional amendment that would have prohibited flag burning has failed in the Senate.

My personal view on flag burning is that it's potentially offensive speech and that it ought to be within the letter of the Constitution to treat it in the category of "fighting words". But that would be a different discussion altogether than this amendment.

Comments

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I admit that I think it should remain protected speech, because it is a very powerful statement. I also think that Congress has way, way more things to worry about than this.

But, most of all, I think that all these nits must not have been Boy Scouts or military people, because the accepted way (http://www.usa-flag-site.org/forum/worn-out-flag-932.html) to dispose of an old flag is by burning it (http://www.vfwmi.org/us_flag_disposal.htm).

[madfilkentist]

The amendment actually would have prohibited "physical desecration," not burning. Anything permitted by the priests ... I mean by law ... is by definition not desecration.

The news is encouraging, but not very much so. There are 66 scumbags in the Senate who voted to desecrate the Constitution. That includes a number of Democrats.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I'm with you. I never expected this travesty to pass; 66 votes (one short of passing) is far more than I expected and I'm dismayed.

I'd rather not see people burn the flag, but if someone is pissed off enough to do something like that, I'd rather have them burn the flag than blow up the building where the flag is flying or shoot random people passing by.

[bschilli.livejournal.com]

There appear to have been two flag burning of the sort they seem to think we need to stop since 2002. One of those was by a drunk kid. Obviously this is an out of control menace to our country...

Ben

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

The real tragedy is that with all the problems facing us--budget woes, overworked troops, educational crises, Rush Limbaugh back in drug rehab, New Orleans still devastated--this and same-sex marriage are still on the docket.

I want "None of the above" on my ballot.

However, I am glad that, at least, the amendment failed. For my money, flag burning certainly qualifies as "fighting words" Constitutionally, but it is almost always also covered by municipal, county, and state laws prohibiting unsafe fire conditions and disturbing the peace.

The "disturbing the peace" law could also apply by a Constitutionally reasonable person's standard to Fred Phelps, the alleged minister who protests troops' funerals. That also is another discussion entirely, but I felt compelled to bring it up.

[madfilkentist]

The "fighting words" doctrine which the Supreme Court upheld in Chaplinsky vs. NH is bad enough in itself. It's a remnant of a period when it was considered honorable to beat someone up if you considered yourself insulted.

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

Bill, with respect to the fact that this is your LJ, I would like to respond to the "fighting words" point that madfilkentist makes.

Having now read a summary of Chaplinsky vs. NH, I must now also agree that both the ruling and the Supreme Court's stance on "fighting words" are both regrettable. However, certain forms of expression are guaranteed to be unnecessarily inflammatory. How do we, in a free society, protect such speech while still ensuring a free and reasonable exchange of ideas?

As a non-American ...

[(Anonymous)]

... I am always amazed by the quasi-religious investment in the physical Stars & Stripes.

Here in the UK you can buy the Union flag on underwear, dresses (like one of the Spice Girls wore), money boxes and just about anything else. And if someone burns one, well, if they bought it, it's theirs to dispose of.

Similarly if someone burns a picture or effigy of the Queen, then that, of itself, is not particularly important/illegal. Of course if they do it as part of inciting hatred or in a public place where it could be a fire hazard, then that's different but only because of the consequences, not because of the physical act itself.

It seems strange, from this distance, that a country dedicated to freedom, free speech and freedom of religion, should at the same time grant a piece of cloth some mystic special protection just because of what is printed on it.

Now I know how important symbols are to many people, and there's an indoctrination in your schools by swearing allegiance to the flag, now what's that all about? "And to the republic for which it stands" well, that explains part of the problem I guess, you tell people that the flag *is* the Republic and so burning the flag becomes an anti-republican (small "r") issue.

So what's with the Pledge of Allegiance? I realise this may come across as unnecessarily antagonistic, for which I apologise, but can anyone explain quiety and rationally why children have to swear allegiance every morning? It has the unpleasant resonances of pictures of Stalin, Mao or Saddam up everywhere (except that it's not a cult of personality but a commitment to an ideology).

Or have I gone too far in questioning this? If so, then I apologise in advance.

Ooops, sorry, that was me

[the-magician.livejournal.com]

I can't delete and resubmit that comment since I forgot to login when I replied (which also explains why I can't see half the entries on my friends list!)

I didn't want that to come across as being from an anonymous non-american who was afraid to identify themselves.

[poltr1]

What gets me about this whole flag-burning thing is that burning a flag (after it's been ripped to shreds) is the preferred way of disposing and retiring it. I think it says so in the US Flag Code.

[msminlr.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but disposal of worn-out flags is generally done quietly, respectfully, and without surrounding speechifying.