http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...tion-vote_x.htm









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

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

And I thought this nonsense would go away some day.

From your linked article, this depresses me no end:



Or at least says one expert.

If this evil amendment actually becomes part of the United States Constitution, I will burn a flag; I will burn a copy of the Constitution; and I will no longer consider myself an American citizen. Since it is not practical for me to leave the country, I will still be one in the eyes of the law; but not in my eyes.

I will be forced, against my will, to echo the words of Philip Nolan, as recorded in Edward Everett Hale's classic story "The Man Without a Country":

So would you burn one in protest of the Amendment?

The only circumstance in which I could conceive of myself burning an American flag would be in protest of an anti-flag-burning amendment. So, yes. Should this amendment ever pass, I will burn a US flag - and I expect thousands of others will, as well. Indeed, I expect the passage of such an amendment would see more flag-burning within a week than in our entire cumulative history. Talk about defeating the purpose!

If this is the most pressing issue facing Congress, why don't they just take some time off - and maybe come back sometime after November, 2006?


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

Absolutely. We've been over this debate a few times in the past, so I won't reiterate what I've said in this thread or in this one. But, seriously, why bother with a new amendment? Wouldn't it be easier to just repeal the First Amendment?

Oh, hell, I will reiterate something I posted - in both previous flag-buring threads:

LOL. I wonder how many pollutants and "greenhouse" gasses are given up when a flag is burned? Shouldn't the EPA press criminal charges against flag burners? I'm sure that the pollutants, measured in parts-per-million (PPM) are greater than the levels advocated by people such as "The Sierra Club"?

I can only shake my head and laugh in disgust when I see people who live in "the land of the free" willfully desecrate the symbol of our nation.

I think the vast majority feel that way too. Constitutional amendments are, by nature, difficult to get passed. If this one does (hopefully next year which puts the dems in a tough spot in a mid-term election year), then it will be passed with the overwhelming support of the American people.

In our society, everyone can't always get their way. Sometimes, the majority gets to decide. And when that happens, those on the other side can stomp their feet and scream like little children.... or they can stomp off and burn an American flag and then suffer the legal consequences of doing so.

My poll so I should answer.

I would do so in protest. America and what we stand for goes far beyond a piece of cloth. The symbol means nothing compared to the substance of what we are supposed to be and uphold as ideals.
I am tired of people who are of such limited faith in America that they think suppressing free expression somehow enhances our freedoms and follows the spirit of this country.
Freedom is never Free is a well worn quote often used and even overused but it generally fits many arguments.
freedom is much more than parades and banners. it is the hard work of standing up for freedom--even when you diagree with others.
dissention and debate and even childish acts of protest should always be accomodated as long as no attempts to force others to comply occur.
If it harms no one physically and causes no property damage then let it burn.

It is such a rare event in this country i see no reason for a restriction on it. Even more I would find it an effective barometer of the country's mood if they suddenly started going up in large numbers. that would to me be a strong sign something was very wrong here. I find the idea of the amendment itself to be nothing more than a cheap political passion play.

Most Americans have such a respect for the flag that the thought of burning one seems to me considered as an extreme form of protest.

We are losing enough freedoms these days for spurious reasons, we should yield no more and demand the maturity required of a people who claim to be the freest on earth and indeed in mankinds history.

Back in XVII century Russia had a law on its books saying that anybody firing a weapon in the direction of the church, especially in the direction of the cross on top of it, would be quartered. Supposedly, a mercenary German officer, an unlucky fellow totally unaware of the law, has been executed for firing his musket to shoot a crow on top of the church.

We are a nation so high on symbols. We measure our patriotism by the number of flags hung on the front porch. To lift our patriotism level even further, we attach stickers with our flag to our bumpers. No other nation wears so much apparel with national flags imprinted on it as we do. We brainwash our children by forcing them to repeat the Oath of Allegiance to our nation and our flag every single day - as it would make them better citizens somehow. In other words, we have a Cult of the Flag on our hands.

How is the cult of Stars and Stripes different from the cult of Hammer and Sickle? In Soviet Union kids had to salute the flag with Hammer and Sickle as well. You could have gotten in jail for desecrating a symbol. Patriotism also was measured and expressed by flags and symbols.
Of course, stars and stripes and hammer and sickle stand for totally different things, and I don't equate things that they represent. But does it matter? Both of them are just symbols. Why do we love symbols more than the things that they represent? To the degree that we are willing to limit some of our beloved freedoms to protect the sanctity of the symbol?

I love freedoms that this country provides; I know and appreciate the history and culture of United States. Does the fact that I don't have an American flag hanging on my front porch make me any less patriotic? I don't think so.

If you do so in protest to an amendment that was passed via the constitutional process then you should be prepared to pay the price for that illegal action.

And, you shouldn't expect anyone to feel sorry for you when you do.

As I said earlier, constitutional amendments are (by design) hard to obtain. If one passes, rest assured that it went through the gauntlet and had to gain wide ranging support.

Do you have a good lawyer on retainer yet?

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

No, it is an ineffective form of protest. That's why it isn't done very often. Can anyone come up with a statistic on how many flag burnings in the United States happened over the past five years?

I have not heard of a single one.

However, and this should be carefully considered, the amendment has to do with the physical desecration of the flag, not just burning. Who defines that? Will you be thrown in the slammer if you put a US flag decal on your SUV and it gets muddy? What about all those faded and ripped flags flapping all over the Interstates? Might the bikers get a bit miffed at being stopped and fined?

Source



No flags in advertising. No flags over car dealerships. No flag napkins, beer cups, motorcycle helmets, motorcycle tanks -- Easy Rider videos get banned. No flags anywhere but where they are supposed to be: flagpoles near or in government buildings, flagpoles on public property, flagpoles on private non-commercial property, flag holding and displaying boxes, and military coffins.

Also, forget about flag clothing. No, I don't see any reason to protest this proposed amendment because people will see how foolish it is during the ratification process.

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

No, see above.

The most effective way to protest this silly use of the amendment process is to vote the promoters of it out of Congress. Heh, pushing this amendment under the noses of voting Americans during the next election season might be just the thing to put Congressional power into the Demos' hands.

I think around the 4th of July would be excellent. Hey, you over there marching along in the flag suit -- slammer time for you, buddy! Poor Uncle Sam.

So patriotism and the display of it is a "cult"?

That's a new one.

Why such a big deal about the flag? I don't know. Why is there such a big deal about the CONFEDERATE FLAG? Why the actions to remove that symbol from government institutions?

Any idea? It's just a "symbol" after all. Are the people who are trying to remove that mere "symbol" cult members too? Why stop there. Why the big stink about removing the 10 commandments from government offices? It's just a "symbol". It's just "words". Why should anyone be offended by that, right?

If you appreciate the culture and the history of the United States then you should KNOW that symbols that represent that history, both positive and negative, are important to many if not most people.

Not flying a flag doesn't make you "unpatriotic". However, not recognizing and respecting the fact that many people consider that an important symbol of this country does.

Personally, the Confederate flag debacle is not really a big deal for me. Apparently, the people who fly it are not even aware that it is not even a true flag of the Confederacy.

Patriotism is not a "cult". The over-the-top display of it is.
Several centuries ago Samuel Johnson said "Patriotism is a last refuge of a scoundrel".
Love for your country is just as natural as love for your mother. How many people put "I love my mom" bumper sticker on their cars? How many people imprint their mother's portrait on their T-shirts? This would be considered ridiculous... Why is that urgent need to profess to everybody the love for the country?
It's normal and natural to love your parents. This love can not be "taught" by making the child to repeat the Oath of Alligeance to their parents every single morning.
However, most normal people keep their love for their parents to themselves. And that's the way it should be.

It is also normal to love its own country. Once again, people will love it anyway, just like Canadians, Swedes, Italians, Aussies, etc. love their countries. No brainwashing necessary.



It's exactly because I respect this country I will not put a symbol of it on my sweaty T-shirt. I will not wear a stars-and-stripes underwear. And I cringe when I hear the National Anthem being mangled by voiceless people before every sporting event, big and small.
By overusing the national symbols we trivialize them.

So you're OK with punishing people who don't respect and recognize the fact that many people consider the flag important by making flag-burners criminals?

Why should flag-burning be made illegal? Among other things, it seems very problematic to implement and seems contradictory to Americans ideals of free speech.

Yes, I'm ok with it if the constitutional amendment passes which will prevent the activist judiciary from overturning laws designed to make this practice illegal.

Why should it be made illegal? Because it's offensive to the vast majority of people who see the flag as a symbol of our values, our freedoms, and the huge sacrifices of millions.

Burning a flag isn't free speech. It's provocation, arson, and vandalism.

One can't justify yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded room under free speech protections. A person can't berate another person using racial or other forms of "hate speech" or make violent threats and not be charge with assault (yet not battery).

Free speech, like all rights protected by the constitution are not unlimited.

That isn't to prevent people's ears from hearing the word 'fire', lest it offend them. It's to prevent panic and protect them from being trampled in a riot. Yelling 'fire' in a crowded room is a safety risk.

My answer to the poll question is no. I'm with Authormusician that it is an ineffective form of protest.....but it should remain a protected form of free speech. I also have the same reservations about the language 'physical desecration'. Leaving a flag out in the rain? What applies here? Are we supposed to treat the random flag with the care we'd have for a newborn baby? Comment incroyablement ridicule!

Are you propounding a principle of law that expressions that are offensive to the majority can properly be made criminal? Then why could not the majority who now believe that the invasion of Iraq was wrong declare that any public defense of that invasion to be offensive and therefore criminal? Could any minority political expression be safe in your political regime?


Burning a flag has been declared by the courts to be political speech. As such, it falls under the protection of the First Amendment.
Do you regard provocation as criminal? If so, I suggest that you yourself are eminently deserving of lifelong incarceration.
Flag burning is most certainly not arson. Arson is the burning of another person's property. Burning one's own property is not arson.
Flag burning is most certainly not vandalism. Vandalism is the willful destruction of another person's property. Destroying one's own property is not vandalism.


The restrictions on hate speech have not yet been subjected to constitutional tests.
Threats of violence are not political speech, and are therefore not protected under the First Amendment.

Flag burning doesn't bother me at all... It's an individual's right to freedom of expression. Although I know inside the true reason they are burning the flag is to attempt to incite rage in their political opponents.

I believe those of us who respect the flag as a symbol of our great nation did not take offence to this puerile action, that eventually it would cease to happen because what would be the point if it no longer upset anyone.

Sometimes you have to stop and look at the reason somebody is doing something, not the action they are taking.

I voted "no" but think that an amendment is ridiculous. Flag desecration is exactly the kind of speech intended to be protected by the first amendment. Look at these examples of free speech in action.

flag burning in Lahore

Indian Muslims urinate on the flag

flag / GW face burning

Muslim protestors in New York City burning American flag to protest Koran desecration (note - this is a video link)

Powerful stuff.


Right there with ya. Maybe we should write up instructions whereby people have to wear gloves and use mostly their right hand, like the Korans at Gitmo. It's a shame that most folks don't seem to care for their flags, though, leaving them out in the rain and flying them until they are tattered.

edit - my video link died. can't find a photo

If you want to make Bush's action illegal, then demand that the democrats impeach him for going to war. I'm sure it'll make Kerry and Edwards and a whole lot of other democrats uncomfortable though.... since they voted FOR the war given the same intelligence Bush had access to.




Yes, the courts have decided. Thus, the constitutional amendment drive.

Arson is also burning your own property. If I set my house on fire in order to collect insurance, that is "arson".

The point is that free speech is written, spoken, or otherwise communicated. Burning the symbol of this country is just a stunt, and a provactive one at that.

Free speech is not unlimited.

While I can't think of a reason I'd burn a flag, or anything else for that matter, it certainly is and should remain a viable and legal form of protest. I think you should be able to burn anything you want, on your own property and in a safe manner, be it a flag, the Bible, your bra, whatever.

Let's be honest, a flag is just a piece of cloth, probably mass produced in China. Who cares if you burn it? Burn a lot of them. It's not like you're burning the country, it only has as much meaning as you choose to assign to it.

I don't assign much meaning at all, but I'm a realist.

Just thought of something extremely problematic with the amendment. Isn't the proper way of flag disposal the burning of the flag?

I do think so. This amendment would make criminals of all those who properly dispose of the flag.

The amendment itself needs some amending, so it looks to me. All the ramifications of it have apparently not been thought through over the years.

For example, I can envision a demonstration where the flag is burned in a very ceremonious manner to make a point, perhaps that nations come and go, but God is eternal -- does that then fall into a non-desecration category? Perhaps a church somewhere would want to make the point that the nation is under God, not the other way around.

And how does one determine when a flag burning is done with the acceptable ideas in mind? Is sending a message that the country is on a wrong path unacceptable? Were the flag-desecrating Muslims mentioned wrong to protest the treatment of Muslim prisoners?

If I had friends and family members thrown into the slammer without due process, think that would cause an urge to protest. But I'd do it a little differently:

What about flying the flag upside down, a signal of distress? Acceptable or unacceptable? Desecration or free speech?

The term "desecrate" has some problems with it too. A synonym in the Merriam Webster dictionary is "profane," and so there's a religious connotation to the amendment. The flag is not a sacred object, in that it represents a country, not a god. Desecrating (profaning) the flag is an inappropriate way of describing the act of burning a flag out of protest. Adding the religious connotation to the Constitution will violate the First Amendment, and so the proposed amendment isn't legal.

To make it legal, the proposed amendment would have to be reworded, or the First Amendment would need to be revoked. The former would be wise at this point, and the latter is simply too ridiculous to consider.

I'm just not sure how the wording ought to be done, because at the core of this whole thing is an odd combination of national pride and religion. It's a little ugly on the edges, and the more folks think about this, the ugly edges will become more apparent.

Seriously, don't we have more pressing matters at hand than a ridiculous amendment that is in direct constrast with a little thing called the 1st Amendment?

I think flag burning can be an effective form of protest (particularly regarding this proposed amendment) but usually is not. I doubt I'd burn a flag in protest, but I wouldn't fault anyone for doing so.

And yes, AuthorMusician, the proper way to destroy a flag is to burn it. I think, though, they have certain rules and regulations they have to follow when doing so. It'd probably be protected in the proposed amendment in some way, shape, or form.

The idea that we need an amendment like this is ludicrous.

That's why an amendment would be needed.

I myself would never burn a flag. The flag is the symbol of the United States and I feel like someone who would burn one (in protest) is saying they'd like to burn the USA.

As others have indicated, I don't recall this being so much of an issue recently. Sure, foreigners burn our flag, but they'd probably also burn our country if given the chance. This amendment doesn't apply to them (obviously).

I wouldn't have much of a reaction to this either way. I'd prefer people don't burn the flag and doing so ruins any credibility the protestor may have had, which weakens their position.

Flag burning is currently protected as political speech. This amendment would change that. Nothing wrong with defining our values in the Constitution.

What does this mean -- that they would like to start a lot of forest fires? That they'd like to nuke every city in the country? Do you believe that those who protest by burning the flag have genocide on their minds?

People who burn flags do so because they're very angry about the political situation. They wish to display their anger in a manner that they know will outrage flag-idolators. And the flag-idolators duly get outraged. Why don't we just ignore these overly emotional people? We don't need the silly controversy this amendment would entail. Besides, if we outlaw flag-burning, do you think that angry protesters won't come up with other outrageous means of expressing their political views? Burning effigies of the President? Displaying effigies suggesting obscene acts being done to various political figures? You can't stop this kind of thing. Best to just ignore it.

Well of course that's why it would be needed - I just think it's silly to be wasting our energy on something that's not even an issue. Once we start taking away people's rights to free speech and redifining them as we (or some of us) see fit, we belittle the notion at the heart of free speech (which is why I commented on it being in direct constrast with the 1st amendment). We don't need our government telling us it's not okay to burn a piece of cloth that symbolizes one of the very things they're proposing to take away.

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

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

Several posters here are correct, congress has better things to do than contemplate a constitutional amendment banning the burning of a piece of cloth.
If somebody wants to burn the American flag, then it is within their rights to do so.

That being said, I believe that protestors who resort to this are only showing the lack of intelligent discourse and reason on their part. To burn the flag is a childish display of anger, like throwing a fit when their little brains are all out of ideas. They do it only to anger the majority of Americans who would not burn the flag, out of respect for what it stands for. They do it to goad, incite and inflame....on a pure emotional level, nothing more.

I wonder if the pro-flag burning crowd had issues with Koran 'desecration', and if so, do they notice the hypocrisy?

As someone who has [in his very youth] already burned the stars out of an American flag to symbolize the many things I disliked about America I can say that the very purpose of doing so is only to provoke those who hold the flag -and the values it represents- dear.
The ones who ought to be provoked do not recognize the very problems or share the criticism that the flag-burners want to point out.
The act itself is entirely emotional, it is a cry for attention, and it does not lead to terrorism as some statements imply. It's just an opinion that can be best dealt with by ignoring the action and focussing on the [unadressed] topic that lead to this action.

By reacting with stricter laws and criminalisation of the perpetrators the government vividly fulfills the protesters intention of showing the world American hypocrisy: The ideal of symbolically representing the world's finest democracy and the actual conditions.

No, flag burning is a vital part of the freedom of opinion and expression.

I would not personally burn a flag, it's just something that I can't bring myself to do, but I would certainly understand others doing so. This Amendment is the eqivilant of putting an asterix next to the first Amendment. This Flag Burning Amendment itself is unConstitutional unless we're also considering abolishing the First Amendment. I don't know if this Amendment is supported by the majority of Americans, but if it is, that is deeply troubling.

CP

I would have to be supported by a majority of Americans in order to pass. It would take an overwhelming number of states to approve it, and a supermajority of Congresspeople.

Adding an amendment to the Constitutional is not un-Constitutional. If these people can muster the needed support, more power to them. I doubt most people are all that motivated by this.

This isn't akin to banning criticism of the government, which was actually done early in this country's history (without a Constitutional amendment). This bans one form of protest. A form which most people see as having little intellectual value. Its purpose is to inflame the opposition, which gets us nowhere.

Two things...That would kinda make Congress restricting Free Speech/Expression, wouldn't it? Also, saying that all Conservatives are evil and will go to Hell is inflamatory and gets us nowhere, how's about banning that? Where does it stop once a precedent for restricting free speech/expression has been made?

CP

Not Congress...the Constitution. You know, the Supreme Law of the Land?

Someone disagrees with a Supreme Court decision giving a protected status to flag burning. That party's only recourse is a Constitutional amendment. If that person can muster the support, no one is really hurt.

It's the only recourse when the Court rules about certain things. If it becomes protected activity then only an amendment can change that. The thing with an amendment is, however, that it requires overwhelming support. The Equal Rights Amendment never passed despite widespread support. Perhaps this will be similar. Who knows.

Point taken, but I'd have to look it up to see if a Constitutional Amendment can in fact, violate one of the previous ones. If it isn't illegal, it doesn't seem right to me. Using a Constitutional Amendment to roll back Constitutional liberties is not right, if not illegal.

CP

I agree with many of the posters that have said that burning the flag while grotesque and anti-american is protected under our first amendment privileges. While i find it ironic that someone would burn the very symbol that allows them to burn it in the first place, its just something we have to live with.

People who want others to be prosecuted for burning the flag is as ridiculous as those who think people who pick up the Koran with one hand, drop it, or kick it should be prosecuted...oh wait!

It's accomplished by wording the new amendment as an exception to the First Amendment. Something like:

"The First Amendment to this Constitution is hereby amended to exclude the desecration of the flag of the United States of America from the protection afforded by the freedom of speech established in that Amendment."

And I'll bet that somebody can find a hole in my wording. But that's the basic concept.

Thank you Erasmussimo. At least I now know how the government will abridge free speech, they'll just change its definition...Brilliant! In that case, it isn't illegal to pass the Amednment, it's just underhanded and anti-freedom of speech.

CP

Here is yet another problem with the amendment process: This isn't for free. Elections cost money!

A building referendum vote in this little berg cost the city $12,000 from a budget where that is a significant amount of change. What is this amendment process going to cost the US and the states? Has anyone noticed that we are deeply in the red across the board?

This is not only looking silly to me, but deeply irresponsible.

Edited to add: A cynical look at this has the Republicans playing the amendment card again for the 2006 Congressional elections. We need to send them a message, and the message should read: You're Fired!

I think that's the point. It's hardly "the land of the free" if the mere burning of a flag can land you in federal prison, now is it?

I'm sure we would all be prepared for that eventuality. The question remains for you to answer - Why should burning the flag be a crime in "the land of the free, and the home of the brave"?


I don't see anyone going to jail for burning a confederate flag, or for removing the 10 commandments from government buildings.

And excuse me? I understand that the flag is an important symbol for a lot of people, so I guess I am as patriotic as the next guy. But I can also understand where someone with a grievance against the government may become so frustrated with the actions of the government, that they feel this is the only way they have left to voice that frustration. Again, why should that be a federal crime? What does the government have to fear from this?


Finally, an answer to the question. But, as Mrs-P and Erasmussimo have pointed out, merely being offensive isn't isn't considered to be a crime in this country. Being a minority with a beef against the government has never been considered to be a crime. Unless of course, you are advocating a more facist turn to the way we conduct government in this country?

Also, as noted by others, desecration of our flag goes on all the time by well intentioned, "patriotic" folks.

From the Flag Code
Sec. 8 - Respect for the Flag

That does it! Time to lock up Martha Stewart again!


So let's see, no American flag plates, cups or napkins for the 4th of July. No flag cushions for your new boat. No flags on the front pages of newspapers, or on containers or boxes, or added to used car ads for President's Day or Memorial Day weekend sales. Heck, if I read this right, we can't have American flag stamps, either. They're used only temporarily, and then discarded. Not to mention which, they are desecrated before they get to the recipient, by the cancellation stamped on top of it.


Hmm, if this amendment passes, we're gonna have a problem.... Every VFW, or Boy Scout troop in the country is going to be violating the law.

C'mon, Lordhelmet, are you really sure you want to go down this path?

Indeed it is. I have no desire to burn a flag currently, but I'll have to admit that, were such a ridiculous amendment to pass, I'd consider burning one as an act of civil disobedience.

I would, however, support a person's right to burn one, as I consider it a penultimate test of political speech and the spirit of the first amendment.


I'd say the Supreme Court and a ton of people would disagree with that assessment, LH. Its the ultimate form of political protest, which last time I checked was protected by the First Amendment.

I find your support of the amendment ironic, when in the same statement your signature touts the GOP (via Ken Mehlman) as the party of "freedom and progress". With legislation like this, I'd say they are neither.

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

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

I don't know how often we had this argument on the midnight shift. I don't recall that I have ever seen a spate of Americans burning the American flag. I have often seen footage on the TV of American flags being burned in say, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc. An amendment to our constitution would have no effect on how people in other countries treat our flag.

Then comes the question of how should one properly dispose of an American flag which has flown continuously night and day since 9/11/2001. These tattered, faded, irrational statements of patriotism; which have been flown night and day without lighting, never lowered to half staff to honor a dead soldier, and often flapping as up to 13 separate white and red banners really should be lowered, replaced, and properly disposed of.

A random web site on flag etiquette gives this answer as the Proper Disposal of the American Flag.



In summary, I would never burn an American flag in protest, but I think more people should consider burning their flag as a way of showing their respect for that symbol.

Liberty or Death LH. Free speech is completely unlimited and needs to be defended vigorously against all those who try and suppress others to bend to their will.

ther opinions of most mean little to me LH. I would also be very prepared to stand up for my freedom and liberty against and law or Amendment I find to be a flat out betrayal of all America stands for. Your threatening insinuations are exactly why i would make such a stand.

Don't Tread On Me....Pretty clear statement to me. I have no time for the weak who have no faith in what America means and are willing to compromise our freedoms to appease those unable to deal with a form of protest.

and I doubt I would need to pay for a lawyer to defend my rights. Regardless of the amendment being passed there are many who still stand firmly for freedom.

Just for clarification, here is the text of the proposed Amendment - HJ RES 5.



Interesting. This doesn't actually make the desecration of the American flag a crime, but rather enables Congress to pass legislation that does should they choose to do so. And indeed such legislation exists in HR 1974.

Firstly, let me point out I am not American, so depending on your opinion that may ad or lessen any comments I have to make on the topic of burning the American flag.

Obviously, this is first and foremost a freedom of expression issue. It is obviously an extreme case of it, but that does not make it any less of a freedom of expression issue. So you need to look at exactly WHY freedom of expression is so integral to the US constitution. Obviously it does not apply only to nice friendly happy speech, it applies to actions and speech that makes us uncomfortable, that we disagree with or that strikes a negative chord. If the constitution were only meant to protect the freedom to say things the right wing generally agreed with, there would be no need for the constitution.

Flag burning, assuming it is done in a safe manner, is utterly harmless. Nobody is hurt, no damage is caused, no pain is suffered, and its not like there is a shortage of American flags.

So exactly why exactly should flag burning be made illegal? What is the actual, logical justification? That it is a symbol? Yes it is, but firstly, the US is littered with symbols, some of great and some of lesser significance, some with specific and some with broad appeal. Secondly, yes it is a symbol, but by definition a symbol is fluid. During Vietnam, when flag-burning was commonplace in protests, the US flag symbolised unprovoked agression, warmongering and brutality to many people. That is why it was burned, in protest against the actions and mentality of the US government in that war.

You may well not agree with the sentiments of the protesters, or their actions, but that does not mean they had no right or justification for feeling that way.


Lastly, I hate using the slipperly-slope argument, because it is one of the most abused styles in debating, but I must point out, once you allow the basic freedoms of the Constitution of the United states to be altered because those freedome make some people uncomfortable, you have not only set an incredibly dangerous precident, but you have crippled the spirit of the document.

Think of it this way. Who do you think the US Flag meant more to: you, or your founding fathers, who fought a war to have the right toraise their own flag above their own nation? I would say they have a lot more reason to treasure that symbol, and they apparently did not feel the need to 'water down' the constitutional freedoms they were creating by placing unreasonable limits on freedom of expression.

I think that what people would start doing is burning something that looks a lot like Old Glory, but has an extra star or only 12 stripes or something. You'd get pretty much the same emotional reaction but without breaking the law. Plus this would point out the inanity of the law; burn a regular flag and you go to jail, but burn one with an almost imperceptible difference and hey, no problem, go to town on it!

Seems like a wonderful business opportunity for someone with the American entrepreneurial spirit. Add an extra star or an extra stripe and sell them as burnable flags. You'd probably make a mint if this stupid amendment ever got passed.

You could also experiment with color. Would burning a maroon, violet and yellow Old Glory land you in the pokey? What about a black & white and gray flag?

What if the "stars" were happy faces, or 6-pointed stars? What if only one star had six points? What about paper flags, or plastic ones? Would creating a digital image of a flag and then virtually burning it on the Internet be a crime? What if you videotaped yourself burning a flag, but nobody actually witnessed it? Would the videotape get you arrested?

There are all kinds of interesting ways to test the limits of such a kooky law. I bet I'm just scratching the surface.

I was thinking of something that, at first glance, would be indistinguishable from a real flag, but which was safe to burn under the proposed amendment. Would size matter? Arrangement of stars? If you made a 10% change, like in copyrights, does that make you safe?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Whoa - I was with you in this debate up until that last sentence there. You could just as easily have said, "Someone disagrees with a Supreme Court decision prohibiting segregation in public schools. If that person can muster the support, no one is really hurt." When we submit to the tyrrany of the majority, people can be hurt - badly. "Mustering support" in this context does not necessarily make something right - it just makes it "constitutional".

Granted, I don't think we should legislate good protest tactics for these protesters. That would get us nowhere.

If crazy socialists are burning the flag in protest, it only hurts their cause. I can't see why the conservatives want to ban something that makes their enemies look bad. Are they trying to commit political suicide? Do they want the socialists to have more clout? I hope the right hasn't become that insane.

A flag burning prohibition is completely counterproductive.

So would you burn one in protest of the Amendment Yes No
I would never burn an American Flag in protest of something. I feel that it resembles something we all cherish so dear and even though it is a symbol. For me joining the US Navy... it means alot more


If you would not, would you support someone's doing so regardless of the Amendment?
I would not support people burning the flag. That flag means alot to me and it should to them also.

Although I would never burn a flag in protest, I would support someone's right to do so.

If Congress wants to pass this amendment, then they had better also include legal consequences for those who leave it up at night without proper lighting, (Sec. 2 sub. a US Federal Flag Code) those who have flags attached to their car that are not attached to the chasis or the right fender, (Sec. 2 sub b. US Federal Flag Code), or those who have the flags of two or more nations and the flag of the US is not presented higher than or to the right of the others. (Sec. 2 sub. c US Flag Code)

For other "offences" that you will not see included in this amendment, refer to the US Federal Flag Code



Well, as it stands now, it's their right to do so. If you don't agree with that, you can tell them so, that's your right. To ban this form of protest (which is the flip side of this amendment, aiming to "protect" the flag by effectively eliminating aspects of what the flag stands for) completely contradicts the foundations on which this nation was built on.

I think Christopher couldn't have said it more perfectly when he said:



Amen to that brother! Sure, many people choose to respect the flag and revere it. Perhaps there are more of them than those that choose to burn it. Yet what do you say to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who served, bled, and died believing in the old miltary addage of "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" when it's suddenly amended to add "....well, only some of the time."?



That is a very dangerous stance to take. In our society's history, majority rule has led to the perpetuation of slavery, the restrictions of civil and human rights for minorites in this country up to this day (i.e. seperate but equal, Japanese internment, and anti-gay legislation), and the blacklist of the artists of film because their political ideology was not in step with the "majority".

So who will stand up for you when there is no one left?

Wertz also said it best when he said:



This very poorly thought out amendment seeks to "protect" the flag as if the flag is the only thing that keeps this nation from the abyss. Now, sure, I think that the flag is something that should be respected (not revered), but I also know that it's not the flag that makes the nation, it's the ideals. It's the concepts of democracy and freedom that make America what it is.

5,000 years from now, if our nation has faded into the archives of historical record, America will not be remembered for what standard it flew, but what it flew for.

This is a good post, especially since Titus makes the distinction between respecting and revering the flag.

I would much rather see legislation for better health care for the people of this country than an amendment stating Thou Shalt Not Burn The Flag. In a country where even many of those who profess the greatest devotion to this national symbol don't treat it right, they don't need to be telling other people what not to do with it.

And Titus, thanks for the National Flag Code link.