I've always wanted to know why people think that flag burning is ok but cross burning is so wrong. I'm a Catholic, it doesn't bother me, cause I just look at the people who do it, realize how ignorant they are and laugh. Any thoughts?

CP

Flag burning is generally an act of symbolic speech. As in, "I am angry at the country or organization that represents this symbol and I am expressing this by setting it ablaze.

Cross burning KKK-style is an act of intimidation. "We hooded characters are letting you know that you do not know your place and you better lay low or we are going to come do some real damage."

If it were an expression against an organized religion I believe it would receive the same protection as flag burning.

But who's to say that cross burners [not the KKK, that is a little different, everybody knows they're racists, not Catholic haters] aren't just po'd at ot one religion?

CP

If I am not mistaken, cross burning does fall under the protection of free speech if it is done in a public forum, but not if it is done on someone's front lawn.

This kind of harks back to the "hate speech" idea - I can go down to a public park and stand on a soap-box and spout racist garbage, and be protected (from the law, if not from angry passersby!), but the difference is when that speech is directed towards someone specific.

Personally I think open flames and lots of emotional people should be more then enough to ban burning anything as a public statement.

Is shooting off a AK-47 at a pro-gun rally protected as "Free Speech" too? (OK a little extreme, but ya'll get my point)


While back I remeber some idiot dosing the flag with gas. He also dosed himself pretty good too. Flic'd his BIC and the flag and him went up. I did get a pretty good laugh at the guy.

Good point, Herc.

The obvious danger in handling open fire should make this type of statement not permitted across the board. We see people all over the world catch themselves or other protesters on fire by engaging in the statement of flag burning.

Hercules:




I'm sorry, your argument is pretty flimsy. People are responsible for their own actions. The flag is a symbol, that's all it is. It is nothing but a cloth symbol. If I burn a menu, no one will make the mistake of thinking that I am actually burning the food.

I find it quite telling that you can laugh at someone who unintentionally injures themself. If a jaywalker gets slammed by a bus do you laugh? Does ideology trump empathy and decency? If so, that's a shame.

It is not the job of this government to legislate abstract symbology.

Eva, nice to see you're back.
I disagree with your post. Should we no longer be able to have a campfire? To burn leaves? To light a cigarette out of doors? Precautions should be taken when dealing with open flame, but if the government's presupposition is that I will be irresponsible with open flame, and therefore it is proper to ban it, we're all in a lot of trouble when it comes to our civil liberties.

I'm not talking about on omeone else's property, of course that's wrong, its someone elses property. But if someone goes out on their visible front lawn and burns a flag is that illeagal, no.

CP

My point was there should be no burning of anything as a public demonstration, symbolic or not. Open flames and high emotions aren't too smart.

And yes I did have a good chuckle at the Middle-Eastern gentlemen who burned himself trying to light a flag because of the irony of the situation.

Jaywalker getting creamed by a bus cause he was too special to cross with the rest of us......hmmmm I think that's a different thread. Crime and punishment maybe?

quarkhead --

Thanks! It's nice to be back! You have a good point. It would be a shame for the laws to extend to campfires; however, are we permitted to have a campfire in the middle of the streets downtown? I think that's a determining factor.

I'm actually avoiding the entire discussion of flags or crosses by offering a solution that doesnt' discriminate one against the other. Although everyone is responsible for their own actions, public demonstrations can get out of hand and cause danger to innocent people. Crowd control is necessary to an extent. I personally want public safety because I know some of my neighbors. -wink-

The reason I was avoiding the discussion of flags and crosses is because I recognize that both are expressions of individual speach; however, buring a cross is representative of trying to make a race extinct, in my opinion. Making a statement against a government and making a statement against a race are two different things. Therefore, I propose that we simply get around this individual freedom of speech issue by siting safety laws in public areas.

Let them tear the flag up. Let them break the cross in half.

It does take the racist statement out of the issue; therefore, racists will just have to find more creative ways to make their statements without fire. Make it harder for them!

Conservpat --

What someone does in their own yard is their own business. However, I believe that we're responsible to our neighbors to some extent and I would expect that a lawsuit could be filed for pain and suffering the intimidation of an immediate neighbor. Harassment charges too maybe?

It certainly takes the annonimity away from the statement by having everyone in their own yards burning crosses. No more hoods over the heads to conceal identity. Maybe that's the root of it -- how can you be speaking freely for "yourself" if you conceal who you actually "are" with a sheet?

Just my rambling thoughts on the matter.............

I say let them, then the group they oppose will do something to that nature also, and at that point you can find out how stupid the whole thing is.

In light of the fact that most FACTIONS in the u.s can not get along or even hold talks i find it was probally thought about by our forfathers.


I find it good policy for myself to never allow an idea or group to come to a point in my head wheir it blinds me to others, i would like to say the same for the rest of the world but i think this might be what some of the angst stems from if i may.

And to finish this up, the reason that a symbol of another group is burnt, be it a religious one or of a nation does not always share the same reason behind the action of it, i mean you could burn a cross as a KKK person or you could burn a cross in protest of how the catholic leaders hid those molesters, same goes for a flag.

But should you be allowed to burn a cross as a sign of intimidation with the threat of violence? Can you just plant a cross on someone else's property and burn it to make a point and not be guilty of something?

"Can you just plant a cross on someone else's property and burn it to make a point and not be guilty of something? " - Eeyore

I assume you would be guilty of trespassing.

Can anyone clarify this topic further? I know that cross burning was banned, at least to some extent, but was it banned completely? i.e. my own property?

In my view, if it's my property, I should be able to burn whatever I want as long as it does not endanger others DIRECTLY, and if it "says" something to people of another race, well that falls under freedom of speech.

This policy of banning burning crosses is inconsistent anyway. Of course it represents hatred, but so do white hoods, swastikas, red suspenders and army boots, etc, etc, etc. Unless we intend to ban people from shaving their heads too closely, this issue does not belong in front of a judge.

But if the burning is an act of intimidation it is speech that has criminal content. Otherwise burn away and say it is a statement of belief.

I think anyone that goes onto someones land and decides to tell them i dont like you or your people in that fashion will have to own up to something for that action.


But if you or people that favor such a ritual you could say, to go about showing something like that is your right under law as long as it complies with law.

A lot of these issues say with the kkk are history based in meaning that the people that celebrate it are not going to let go of it so easy, and to just go out and step on them is not the right way to stop something that you or your group does not like, or should i say would be legel itself.

A march for peace or burning a cross is the same is some respects in that it is a group that believes in what they are doing, communication would be key but that hardly works and takes along time to get anywhere.

You could say how when canada sold drugs to elderly people for cheap, companies in the u.s made this stop, that would be a reason to burn a flag to some people. Wheir would it be wrong or right is what is the issue here, or should you blindly follow or respect something.

I think the difference is that burning a cross has throughout history proven to be a direct threat -- not a statement. The cross signified that they were coming to kill the person being threatened.

That's not free speech.

It's a threat on a person's life.

Big difference.

I would think that such actions as burning a cross on another person's property wouldn't be protected under law; and while the Fourth Amendment seems in large part directed at limiting the government in it's powers, it also grants people the right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects."
I've said it before in other threads, I'm not well versed on Amendment debates. But I'm not sure that freedom of speech is upheld when it is used to intimidate or impose your will on a person or their property. I've come to that conclusion, at least, when considering the First and Fourth Amendment together... but that's just me.
And in regards to burning crosses or flags in the middle of downtown, I think such actions as that are prohibited by other laws such as public endangerment and, perhaps, negligence. I would think that so long as either is done in a responsible manner, a manner in which the blaze will be contained and other civilians not put at risk, that it's within our rights to burn either a cross or a flag. And, of course, as long as it doesn't violate or threaten another person or their property.