Posted on 06/20/2005 10:35:24 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
A newly released independent poll confirms that the vast majority of Americans want the U.S. Flag protected from acts of desecration.
The random poll of 1,004 adults nation-wide was conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation June 16-19. In responding to the question how important do you think it is to make flag desecration against the law, 81 percent said it was somewhat to extremely important. Another 75 percent said they wanted Congress to pass a flag protection constitutional amendment.
The poll echoes numerous others conducted since a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision overturned five previous courts and made flag desecration legal. Poll after poll indicated that between 75 percent and 80 percent of the public support legal protection of Old Glory from physical acts of desecration.
"I'm delighted but not surprised that this poll again confirms what we already know," said Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander of The American Legion. "When asked a straight forward question, most Americans will give you a straight answer -- protect Old Glory."
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on HJR- 10, the flag protection amendment this week.
Only 28 percent of those surveyed said they would be likely to vote for someone who is opposed to protecting the U.S. Flag.
Complete poll results are available online at http://www.legion.org.
"The people have spoken again loud and clear," Cadmus said. "I urge Members of Congress to heed the voices of the people and the call of all 50 state legislatures. Pass the flag protection amendment now."
The poll has a 3 percent margin of error.
So, if I walk into a store and purchase a flag, that's not private property?
Speech intended to disturb the peace has a legitimate public safety rationale. The rationale for the flag burning amendment is to suppress the exact type of speech (political speech) that the Constitution was meant to protect. It is not a good analogy.
And a flag isn't? If I go out to Wal-Mart and buy a flag with my hard-earned paycheck and then burn it on my lawn, seems like it's all private property to me.
You're right; it isn't rocket science: you can't attack people for engaging in speech you don't like. You just can't. End of discussion. It doesn't occur in a civilized society.
The American people, through their elected representatives, are about ready to do so.
All 50 State legislatures formally petitioned Congress for this Amendment.
It is going to pass so fast it will make your libertarian head spin.
In this instance, him, me, and a lot of other people. Eighty percent of those polled, according to this article.
But let's not have government criminalize flag burning. That's not appropriate. Let's just let the flag burner risk feeling the immediate consequences of his public free speech as expressed by private citizen who disagree.
Let free speech flourish!
Yeah...remind me, how many times has this failed since 1989? Don't hold your breath, chief.
So the people decide what is "ok" speech and "not ok" speech? Sort of defeats the purpose of the 1st Amendment, doesn't it? After all, if speech was considered acceptable by a majority of citizens, it wouldn't need protecting and the 1st Amemdment would be pointless. How do you reconcile that?
. . . and I suppose you are going to be the one to define good and evil for us? Is smoking evil? What about drinking alchohol? What about criticizing President Bush about the war, or watching soft-core porn flicks on Cinimax 2? Are they all illegal in the brave new world you have created.
Liberty is the freedom to act as you wish, as long as you do not infringe on the liberty of another. It is not the liberty to act as you think I should act.
Have you ever seen someone burn an American flag as a form of 'speech' that wasn't a radical Leftist (read communist) or an Islamist?
They despise our country, and everything it stands for.
It's a treasonous act.
You're right. You've convinced me, but we should take it a step further.
Anyone who doesn't like something another person says should be allowed to beat the hell out of that person. It's a absolute defense. I like that. There are some obnoxious folks out there that could really use a good butt kicking.
If the first amendment was interpreted to allow the government to outlaw "evil" speech, politically correct speech would be mandated. Look at Canada where it is illegal "hate speech" to publically criticize homosexuals.
After picking yourself up off the ground, dusting yourself off, and locating your teeth, if you want to take your flag and skulk off to an abortion clinic to burn it or go home to desecrate it in private, have at it.
Matter of fact, yes I have. Neither a communist or an Islamist.
They despise our country, and everything it stands for.
Actually the person that did this doesn't despise 'our country' but he disagreed what he felt it has come to stand for. I didn't agree with the burning but I also recognized his right to burn it
It's a treasonous act.
'Conservatives' love to throw around the word treason and all you do is cheapen the word. It was not treasonous, it just was. As I said say your pledges and wave your flags. Just don't bother me with stupid requirements to pay certain homage to a piece of cloth
If a man went about the country preaching the overthrow of the American republic by violent means, would you consider that 'free speech', or treason?
If someone advocated turning over our government to the mullahs in Iran, would you consider that 'free speech' or treason?
When some commie calls for violent action against the President, is that 'free speech', or should the speaker be arrested and imprisoned?
The idea that there aren't limits on speech is laughable.
so then you're saying that if I see you on the street and I don't like what you have to say, I should be able to kick your ass?
After all, you're saying this in public, I don't agree with it, so you should have to defend yourself from me if I want to beat you up? Is that it?
I love these flag burning threads...they are a hoot...
You have no right to use violence against others in order to squelch their free speech. What you are proposing is rule by the mob.
The next time a group of conservative counter-protestors get beat up by Union or A.N.S.W.E.R. thugs, are you just going to shrug and consider such assaults to be legitimate free speech?
I made myself very clear in a previous post, but I'll do it again in case you missed it: no law means no law.
The First Amemdment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law except when it thinks it's a really good idea to regulate speech..."
But even accepting your premise that there are some limits on free speech, the two examples that you gave that are actually illegal involve immeinent violent acts--something that is simply not present in flag burning. I don't see how they are comparable.
Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater may cause bodily harm in the near term. "Citizens" burning an American Flag as part of an I-Hate-America-Political-Statement may also cause bodily harm in the near term if the Flag burner is surrounded by veterans :-) More importantly it may indirectly cause even more public harm as it emboldens enemies foreign and domestic and demoralizes our armed forces. My opinion, but as the apple rots from the core, Flag burning is the more dangerous of the two events.
You think Flag burning rises to the level of Treason? I thank God your opinions are the exact opposite from what our Founding Fathers put in the Constitution.
The Founding Fathers would think your position a much higher threat to the Republic than flag burning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.