While personally the idea of burning the embodiment of American values disgusts me I would take up the banner in support of those who wish to do so. It is the principle of the matter that makes ones right to demonstrate in any way the find suitable that allows me to support someone who desires the flag to be burned in protest.

There are crimes so heinous that one should never leave their cell. This is not one. Some could argue that this is treason, but when I checked: I am lawfully allowed to gather in a public place and peacefully demonstrate my discontent against any political body or political decision.

If an American citizen chooses to burn a flag it is their right. The flag is not a life. The flag is not federal property. No one is harmed. When a person is persecuted for burning cloth we will lose all of our liberties.

I couldn't think of a better way to register disapproval of this act!. The flag is merely a representation of an ideal. When it's burned, someone is clearly statingthat something is wrong with this ideal, which is expression. not only that, but I'd wager that very few people on this board have ever seen teh flag lit up.

Look's like the Flag-Burning Amendment might just pass:










I have already stated I would never burn the flag. However the fact that the Congress is once again sticking their nose where it doesn't belong bothers the heck out of me. Freedom of speech is slowly disappearing in this nation and it is beginning with the government placing a restriction on how you may or may not desire to protest.

I for one draw this as a parallel to communism. When a nation is so concerned over ruling it's citizens it will do anything to deny them their rights as human-beings. I do not consider flag-burning a human right, however I do consider protest as a right. When a type of protest is eliminated from the drawing board what is next? Government euthanizing of the ill and elderly because they damage hospital's reputation?




Here's to hope.




Great... schedule a flag-burning vote right after a holiday where we celebrate American freedom and independence.


The Story

So would you burn one in protest of the Amendment Yes No

No, its to much of an "in your face" gesture. Also, to my knowledge, protests don't get much done anyway.

If you would not, would you support someone's doing so regardless of the Amendment?

Someone has the right to destroy their own property if they want to, and as a result, I think that people should have the right to burn the American flag. So what if it irritates/disrespects some people? Its our right to do mean things if we want to! GRRRRR

No and No.

I wouldn't burn a flag no more than I'd burn a cross in nighttimers front yard.

Here's the problem I have with allowing flag-burning - it incites violence and only serves to intimidate people who (like me) have served their country, love the flag as a symbol of the freedoms we used to have 4 or 5 years ago, and have sworn our lives to defend it. There's a huge difference in saying the government sucks versus physically intimidating people surrounding you. After all, it's not like Bush and the whole government is watching someone burn a flag on TV. WE are the government and it is US you are intimidating.

If you really think burning a flag is free speech, then you have to agree it's fine for me to march to the NAACP headquarters and burn crosses any time I feel like it. Currently, there are about a dozen states that have banned burning crosses. And it should be that way.

The easy argument is to say the flag is a meaningless symbol made of fabric. But then you'd have to concede a burning cross is only a meaningless chunk of wood. It just doesn't work that way. Just because YOU don't hold any value to a common and well known symbol does not mean everyone else doesn't either. You may call it free speech, but I call it hate speech.

Obviously I will get pounced on here because anyone can find the difference in the two examples I provide to suit your own needs. But I'll save the typing later by saying now - it's a double standard. It should be unlawful to burn a cross in front of the NAACP's headquarters to protest their inaction regarding black-on-black crime (as an example) as much as it is to burn a flag to protest SAT requirements. After all, there is no "standard" in terms of what you're protesting.

With that being said, the states should be taking care of this just like the ban on burning crosses. The feds need to stay out of it. And whoever the crackpot was that tied 9/11 into the flag amendment should be neutered. I thought Bush held the record for politicizing the deaths of 3500 people, but a new one was set with that comment.

And if this amendment passes, all cross burning laws should be repealed - as revolting as that sounds. But hey, we can always pee on the Koran.

Its an interesting argument that you pose Dayton, in that symbols are symbols and one offends one group of people and another-another.
The only difference I can see is that one (cross burning on public or private lawns) invokes real fear in people, the other (flag burning)- just extreme disgust. Maybe they are similar. I dont know if flag burning invokes fear in people, perhaps it does, and if so then that should be a consideration.
I know that flying the Confederate flag on certain State buildings in the South creates fear in people of the place they are living in and people fight hard against that, so your argument is sound, that flags do have more emotional stir than we give them credit for.
We have a history in which the Confederate Flag means a belief in slavery or race separation and Cross Burning usually meant, your House is Next or youre going to be Hanging from a Loop on a Tree sometime soon. I dont know that US flag burning has that kind of fear attached, but possibly it doesnt matter, a symbol is a symbol.
Let me ask then, how does it feel to you when a guy has flag shorts, scratching his privates through them while BBQing with a Bud in hand?

Now personally I will not be affected one smidgen if Congress passes this law, and if all the States ratify. It will be just one more ridiculous and wasteful usage of funds. That is something everyone should be thinking about, because the truth is, almost noone has burned a flag inside the US anytime recently that is of any consequence at all or has even made the news.

What is of concern is that our US Congress people are spending time on this. I dont like paying them for this Bull*crap.

I do think that a Congress who thinks they are going to get away with creating another amendment issue in 2006 in order to win seats based on Americans weakness for superficial patriotism are delusional and are going to shoot themselves in the foot this time. Yes, its a great patriotic topic. No, noone is going to create a national anti-stir. People are going to come out for an anti-flag burning law, and then left with a big hole are going to ask themselves "Is this the best our lawmakers could come up with?"

After all, its not like the 'anti-gay marriage' amendment issue saw ANY result after the 2004 election and that was a great bamboozle of public sentiment that went absolutely NOWHERE. DRRRROpped like a hot potato. Nary a word since from our oh-so moral Administration, although the States jumped on the bandwagon only to use valuable taxpayer time on an ultimately non-issue while -especially in Alaska legislators took overtime pay to do regular States business in summer.

Just as with in everything in our lives we need to pick our battles. Bill Frist may think, and some conservatives may think that hundreds of thousand of dollars should be spent on an anti-flag burning amendment. I believe its a vacuous political manuevor, wasteful and ridiculous, useless, unproductive. Conservatives should be writing to their Congress-people protesting in droves about the waste of their money given their political leanings of less wasteful government.

What has happened to common sense? Is this a pressing issue in any way shape or form?



Im not sure how you correlate. Actually if this amendment passes it would make flag burning in protest illegal, together with laws against cross burning they seem to support the same in your view. Im just wondering how one denies the other, is there something Im not seeing?

So would you burn one in protest of the Amendment Yes No

Regardless of my feelings on the amendment I would not protest it. I do not have time to protest.

If you would not, would you support someone's doing so regardless of the Amendment?

Right now people "have a right" to burn flags. If the amendment becomes law I would not support it because "they have no right."

Why is Congress wasting time on this? The Democrats have no ideas (no specifics), the Republicans keep spending money, and Bush won't veto any bills. Yet we find 2/3 of the Congress willing to add this to the Constitution? It is like a TV show but the joke is on us. One party unable to lead the other party incapable of leading.

As I said before, you can justify it as you choose. If someone burns a flag in front of my house, I would be afraid as much as someone who has a cross burned in front of thier house.

If I burn a cross in front of the NAACP headquarters, there is no need for someone to be afraid any more than it is for me to be afraid of a flag being burned in front of the white house.

What's next, burning diapers in front of people's houses who get abortions?

Sorry..if you consider it speech, it's all hate speech. It's either all legal, or all illegal. No double standards.

I'm sure you don't care, but this has got to be the most disingenuous thing I ever heard... maybe, not... but close. Some people will say anything to get a point across. Tell me is there a history I don't know about of people burning flags prior to lynching patriots to the nearest tree?? When you grew up did you hear the violent history of anti-American movement that burned american flags scurrying unwanted patriots from neighborhoods. "Oh God. Here comes those most ferocious animals the... the hippies " ooooohhh how scary... the flower children!

I will agree to your statement that "you can justify as you choose" and you can pretend that Americans are afraid of flag burners, also. They are not and you are not... Maybe you're just afraid of what you'll do to a flag burner... yeah, maybe that's it.

Thank you for telling me what my feelings are on this. While you're at it, tell me the last cross-burning that was followed by a lynching immediately afterwards. You seem to be the all-knowing on this point. My recollection is there have been plenty of cross burnings (that helped create laws in many states to stop this abhorrent behavior) in recent history to intimidate people, but no lynchings in recent history. But I'm open to the contradictory data you can provide on this.

Ahhh....the fun of defending an unpopular point of view...

This says it better than I can so I won't even try:


You have a right to speak freely because doing so does not force someone to listen. You have a right to own a firearm because merely doing so does not kill someone. You have the right to remain silent if arrested--because you're not initiating the use of force on someone if you do.

You DON'T have the right to steal from me, because you're initiating physical force on me if you do. You DON'T have the right to take my life, because I own it and it's an initiation of violence to kill me. You DON'T have the right to keep me from owning a rifle, because you'd be initiating the use of force to do that. And you DON'T have the right to keep me from speaking, because you'd have to use your fist or a gun to do that.

<snip>

Our flag is a symbol of that liberty, and in fact is a symbol of our right to burn it if we see fit. If a law is passed which says I can't, I'll be the first one taking a match to the stars and stripes.

How could I despoil that which I love? Because nothing could possibly desecrate that symbol more than a law which contradicts everything for which it stands.

http://www.usflag.org/amendment.html

Sadly enough, I'm forced to agree with you again nighttimer in the sense that there shouldnt be a law prohibiting people from burning a flag.

However, in the US, I believe that as a people we should become the deterrent to burning the symbol of our nation as opposed to a law preventing it. I am obviously biased as a serviceman, and believe that being a southerner adds fuel to the fire. But let me tell you, I can't imagine my reaction or that of my friends and family if we were to actually happen along someone burning a flag in public.... Lord help those people. By taking a gander at all of the American flags on vehicles, the support our troops stickers, and generally pro-American sentiment here in TX, I would imagine that the prognosis wouldn't be good for Flag burners here in the Big D.... law or no law...

I think you've done okay in defending your view - it's your analogy with cross-burning that's a bit more strained. Despite more recent cross-burnings, the act has a history of association with acts of violence. Flag-burning, at least in the US, does not.

For what it's worth, I feel cross-burning should also be protected by the First Amendment - so long as no one is doing either on someone's front lawn. I would be intimidated by someone burning anything on my front lawn. But if you're claiming that you are intimidated by seeing a few protestors burning a flag in some public demonstration on the evening news, then you are far more easily intimidated than I would have imagined.

Well, first let me say.. You're Welcome. I am glad to help you get in touch with your true feelings. Second, I don't feel like looking for the last time some was lynched after a cross burning. Can we just agree to the 1960's for time's sake.... please

The history is recent enough that it happened in my parents's lifetime, which means it's not stories handed down like folklore. Me personally, if someone burned a cross in my yard, I'd want to bust their head to the concrete, more than I'd want to cower in some kind of fear. But this isn't just about me... or just about you. The history of breeding fear towards blacks by cross burning, whether recent or ancient, is American history. It has genuine roots to make it plausible that burning a cross would be intimidating and incite fear.

Telling someone it should be illegal to burn flags is equivalent to believing we should make laws against "your mama" remarks. "you're an idiot"... "your mama" Sure some people are going to get real upset and want to fight, but while fear leads to anger, every time some one gets angry doesn't mean they were afraid.

Generally speaking if some one were to say "I'm gonna kill you and your family" we would see this as speech to inspire fear. Whether it works or not, depends on the individual. Burning a cross in someone's yard, in many ways, sends this message. It says "You are unwelcome" Due to the history of this country it actually says "As a Black person... you are unwanted"

I would like to know how does the burning of a flag intimidate you though

I have to agree with you completely, and add that not only do I feel that Congress has more pressing legislation to attend to, but I'd like to voice my objection at the influx of "value oriented" legislation that seems to keep cropping up. The Sunday afternoon Terri Schaivo vote, the Protection of Marriage Amendment, and now attempting amend the consitution to prohibit flag burning.

Can't I as an adult decide my own values, without having to ask Congress first? Given some of the "values" I have witnessed with Congressional scandals, I'd prefer to decide my own.

Sure...let's say the 60's. Many, many crosses were burned since then without nobody getting lynched. So, the "burning cross = lynching" theory no longer holds. Burning a cross is an idiot expressing their point of view and in the day and age, no more and no less. However, burning crosses is not protected free speech in many states and in my opinion, it shouldn't be.

So, in terms of burning flags intimidating me, that's not the point. You nor I can speak for the general populace. You may not care about someone burning a flag in front of your house (not on your property) no less than a black family that has a cross burned in front of their house (not on their property). But it's not up to me or you to speak for them. We know burning crosses is meant to intimidate and in my view (whether you agree or not), burning a flag is meant to do the same. You can call it ill-founded all day if you'd like, but it is what it is. You can't speak for me and others like me.

Remember, burning crosses and flags has nothing to do with where it's done. Your mind's eye may view the front of a court house or the white house, but the protections are not limited to location (other than private property). If I want to burn a cross in front of the public library full of kids, I should be able to according to all thew arguments here because after all, it's only a chunk of wood.

With this, I am saying not all types of speech are protected and they shouldn't be. Nobody should be able to burn a cross in front of someone's house no more than anybody can burn a flag in front of let's say, a veteran's house that just returned from war (done as a protest).

Trying to separate the "types" of hate speech is simply justifying a double-standard.

I've already weighed in that I think flag burning should remain legal, but I was reading through this thread, agreeing with Wertz and thinking exactly what DaytonRocker noted - the last phrase I've bolded. Although on this one, my logic was a little different. I'm against "hate crime" laws of all types, preferring to focus on the existing laws being broken.

Examples as I see it:
- burning a cross in someone else's front lawn = destruction of property, trespass, arson, etc.
- burning a cross in front of NAACP (assuming there is crowd, with/without white hoods) = mob action, indimidation, perhaps criminal trespass, bare minimum would be disorderly conduct
- burning a cross or US flag on your own property = legal
- burning a flag in public peacefully = probably legal as well, unless you litter
- burning a flag in public while yelling about Nazis, wearing a black hood, ignoring police orders to disperse = disorderly conduct, unlawful assembly ... depends on the context

I guess my question (for anyone who wants to chime in) - I feel that we should have neither 'flag burning' nor 'hate crime' laws - and I think these issues are philosophically consistent. How do you reconcile these two issues? I don't mean to go off topic, I just think it's an interesting parallel, but maybe I'm off base here. (wouldn't be the first time )

edited for spelling / clarity

So, as I stated before, wouldn't that mean that if we can burn flags, all laws banning cross burning should be repealed? That would be consistent...

Yes. I agree with this. Much like I agree with the Nazis right to march in Skokie, even though I hate Illinois Nazis. Free speech means to me that "Congress shall make no law" to abridge my freedom of speech. I'm not sure how the cross-burning bans are worded to avoid this.

The theory has never been "burning cross = lynching." Even when burning crosses and lynching sometimes went hand and hand, it was not the case that one happened then the other surely followed.

I also disagree with that cross burning shouldn't be a protected form of free speech.

I brought up lynching to show an example of how the fear came to fruition. Which leads me to your next statement.



Oh, but I think I can speak for you. Watch me. Your goal is to align flag burning to other intimidating acts by ficticious and disingenuous means. The whole point of burning a cross walking down in front of your house is to say "Nigger, you are not welcomed" It is that simple. And the reason I use the word "Nigger" instead of African American or Black is because if a white person comes walking by your house with a burning cross the message is that extreme. And it's point is to incite fear. The history of burning crosses in front of black people was/is to intimidate. That is its purpose.

Let's think about flag burning. Some people walk down the street, by your house, burning a flag. So here are Americans telling Americans to move out of America because they are Americans?? What is the message?? The purpose of burning the flag, historically, is to show disgust with the government. It is not to intimidate Americans. So, now, disingenuously, you state that it is intimidating... how convenient.



I disagree. Where it is done and how it is done shows the intent of the person doing it. Which makes all the difference in the world.



I'm with Wertz on this... no one should be able to burn anything in front of someone's house.

DaytonRocker , your argument and stance should be admired for it's attempt at being even-handed. Kudos, for that.

Yet there is a great chasm of difference between the symbolism of a burning cross and the symbolism of a burning flag.



Burning a cross, does instill fear and does indicate that, at the very least they want you to be watching your back with every step you take, and at the very worst, that they want you dead. Whether or not someone follows through on the threat, there is fear that is prevalent, and freedom from fear is one of the pillars of our nation.

I've never seen someone (inside this country) burn a flag as a death threat. They are generally protesting the actions of the government that the flag represents. It may instill anger, or provoke thoughtful discussion as it has done here at AD, but I've never seen that action used to intimidate anyone. There is a difference between the symbol of a personal threat and a symbol of discontent.

I was at a large protest that some of you might remember from 1999. A shopkeeper had put up a Commuist Vietnamese flag and a picture of Ho Chi Minh in Little Saigon, which was established by refugees who fled the war. Needless to say, this caused an uproar, yet when taken to court to see that the flag and image would be removed, the judge sided in favor of the shopkeeper, citing his freedom of expression rights.

She ruled in his favor, even though the images tore open wounds that were very deep, especially for those old enough to remember the conflict and the tragedies surrounding it.

Their response: protest in front of his shop until he took them down.

Were people upset? You bet! Some even regretfully turned to violence against the shopekeeper, but they were dealt with according to the law.

Just because it angers you does not give you the right to respond with violence. Just becasuse it offends you does not pave the way for the restriction of free speech.

Huh? I'd respond, but apparantly I don't have to. You can type it up for me instead.

Has the debate turned into forcing the thoughts of others to protect your viewpoint? I'm with Wertz on a lot of things, but it's always a result of thinking for myself.

Anyhow, I had another point but need to help my daughter with her bath. Would you mind letting everyone know what my next disingenuous point was going to be while I'm away? Thanks...

Sure, go ahead and repeal them. If I want to burn a cross on my own property, I should be able to do so, just as if I want to burn a flag on my own property, in a safe and sane manner, I should be able to do so. Burning across or a flag on someone else's property is trespassing, at the very least, and is already a crime under the current laws. We don't need additional laws to handle situations which are already handled.

Thank you for being consistent. That has been my point with my rebuttal.

However, any law banning what could be considered "speech" should be repealed. Not limited to flags and crosses, but any symbolic object. I just don't feel an obejct symbolic of racial hatred is any less or any more important that the object that is symbolic of our freedoms.

Again, I don't see how either of these are helpful to our society and would rather not see the physical destruction of symbolic objects as "speech". So, either allow them all, or don't allow any.

Agreed entirely. I really get sick of this whole 'symbolism' nonsense. It's a piece of cloth. Period. That's all it is. A cross is two sticks nailed together. That's it. It has no inherent meaning, only that which an individual might assign to it. Burning a flag is no different than women burning their bras back in the 60s. Anyone think that if it were happening today, Congress would want to enact a "Save the Bras" amendment?

If you value your flag, don't burn it. Don't go telling someone else what to do with their own property. The funny thing is, your flag, symbol of America, was probably made in China.

I completely agree with this assessment. Cross burning has always been about intimidation and fear. It's a symbolic act designed to send a message, a threatening message to an individual (black or white) or at times an entire community. Flag burning on the other hand is to send a message to government that whatever act it is related to, is being protested. It's a symbol of disgust with governments actions (aka...whatever action is being protested is viewed as burning the foundations of what the flag symbolizes to the American people). Flag burning does not fall into the same category as cross burning.

Cephus and DaytonRocker

Oh what a tangle web we weave. First, burning a flag is intimidating, then burning a cross becomes symbolic, then burning a flag goes back to being symbolic... where are we going??

Let me the first to acknowledge the truth of Cephus's words



I must give credit to the shear magnitude of insight this statement conveys. My I ask what is your opinion is on someone telling a person
"I'm going to kill you!"

May we carry your logic to the level that "i'm going to kill you" is merely five words put together?? O.K. maybe 5 1/2, since "I'm" is a contraction. As a matter of fact, since most, if not all, States have laws against assault, may we call all assault laws unconstitutional so that we may remain consistent. I mean, all in the fairness of free speech.

I am not against burning a cross period. I can actually see how burning a cross can be symbolic. For instance, when Madonna had that like a prayer video. In it, she has a Black Choir singing in front of a cross. Some people may be offended, so what. What was it symbolic of... I have no clue, but I would put it in the realm of symbolism.

Now let's say I am walking out my house at night and a white neighbor looks at me and decides "I am going to burn this cross I put up in my front yard." What is he trying to symbolize. It seems to me he is trying to convey a threat.

Now, again, not to tell you or anyone else what they must think, but can we please try to not to be disingenuous.

Sure I understand I don't know what exactly the man would be thinking, but I believe there is a line between threatening/ intimidating and symbolic speech. That is why I brought up the history of cross burning. Whites have used and still do use cross burning as way to intimidate and threaten Blacks.

Flag burning has no historic value of being burned to intimidate and threaten American Patriots. Instead, flag burning is used primarily as form of "political" speech. Nor is it used now for that reason.

The burning of the cross analogy with flag burning is an apples and oranges comparison in my opnion. It really doesn't have any validity to the questions posed as there isn't about to be an amendment to our constitution forbidding the burning of the cross. Whether or not one should be legal or not is really irrelevant to the questions posed. How in the world would your views on burning a cross influence one's decision as to whether or not to defy the flag burning law?

The more that I think about it, the more that I would seriously entertain defying the new amendment, or at least encourage others to do likewise. I'd be more than happy to be the first one arrested for such a "violation" of the "law."

Yeah. I would burn a flag in protest of the amendment and in protest of anything else I opposed. The government is trying to encroach on our civil rights. We have the right to assemble, a right to free speech, and a right to express our opinions. By burning a flag we're not hurting anyone. No one is being physically assaulted. The flag is burned when it touches the ground. That's legal but burning it in protest suddenly shouldn't be legal. It doesn't make any since.

If you tell someone that you are going to kill them, that is a threat. Just burning a cross isn't necessarily a threat. In fact, it may very well have nothing whatsoever to do with threatening someone. Just *PERCEIVING* something as a threat, whether or not a threat exists, is silly.



No one has the right not to be offended. Couldn't care less if someone is, in fact. I don't care if you're offended by burning crosses or swastikas or burning flags, people's right to free speech trumps anyone's discomfort at being faced with ideas they don't like. Don't like it? Tough.

I think two can play this game. Just because someone says they are going to kill you doesn't necessarily make it a threat. How do you know they are not joking? Just perceiving a group of words strung together that sounds like a threat doesn't mean a person actually was threatening. Right??

No ,it is not right. I agree with to an extent that one must look at the general intent of the person's action. And I addressed this in my last post.

We must find a balance and intent. A white person burning a cross towards a black person is likely done to communicate a threat. Now if the KKK wants to go to a vigil out in the woods and during their rituals burn a cross, to ward off the blackness of night, I have no problem with this.

The flag burning will never hold the any true intent of intimidation

Agreed Droop. That is the classic difference between political speech and hate speech/expression. While I have yet to burn a flag in my lifetime, I will respect the right of those who choose to do so as a symbol of protest.

If this foolish amendment passes, I suspect Nebraska29 and I will be in a rather long line of people considering to be among the first to exercise what Henry David Thoreau would consider "a little civil disobedience".

Doc

I don't want to do it Doc, but I will if those people in the Senate do the wrong thing. A lesson in simple psychology would show the anti-flag burners that it in passing this bill, they are working against their own interests. Flag burning isn't a major problem today, but by passing the law, they will definitely ensure that more burnings occur. It will increase out of principle(as Doc has stated) and it will increase as a way of rebellion and anger by certain fringe groups like anarchists. A simple analogy of this relates to children. If your child doesn't see the cookie jar, why point it out in the first place and tell them no?

Exactly how many flag-burnings have been in the news lately? None? While I'm sure there are a couple people out starting up a flag bonfire here and there, nobody seems to care, it's certainly not newsworthy.

Where are they burning flags? Places like Iraq, Iran... all the places that won't be affected whatsoever by this silly amendment. If it passes, you'll still have all the people overseas sparking up American flags, and it'll give everyone over here a reason to start igniting them too.

Maybe Bush is trying to prop up the flag industry?