Posted on 06/20/2005 10:35:24 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Lots of things are sacred. What else shall we add to your exemption to the First Amendment?
The Constitution is far more important to me than any other symbol of our nation. Shall burning it be prohibited?
The Bible is sacred to many people on these boards. Shall burning it be prohibited?
The Torah is also sacred to many people on these boards. Shall burning it be prohibited?
The Koran is sacred to many people in this country. Shall burning it be prohibited?
While we're on the subject of flags, my cousin died under the flag of the US Navy as well as the US Flag. Shall burning it be prohibited?
Where does this end? Why some symbols, but not others? What's your logic?
Then, if you are going to be consistent, people should be allowed to punch anyone else who says something they disagree with. Okay, shall a Planned Parenthood worker be allowed to punch a protestor in the mouth? How about a gay Catholic punching the priest who won't give him communion?
Or is it only *your* opinions you want enforced with a fist?
Flag-burners do not have superior rights. They are free to burn the flag and you are free to give them a one-fingered salute.
The American way is to roll up your sleeves and defend what needs defending.
I guess in your opinion, only speech that you like deserves to be defended.
Actually, that line has already been drawn in the law books:
Nothing in the law you quoted would ban critisizing the President during wartime. In fact, such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Shall preventing burning it be prohibited? Why is that opinion any less important?
A flag burner says, "No speech is more pure than my burning a flag in public." If that's so, then certainly the converse is true: no speech is more pure than acting to prevent the burning of that flag in public.
They are two perfectly complementary sides of the same first amendment coin.
You are arguing that only side should be recognized and that government should punish anyone who disagrees. That assigns a higher value to the flag burner's speech. That is neither just nor right.
My random thoughts, all in once place, so they are easier to skip over:
Some of the arguments for a flag-burning amendment seem too much to me like the arguments for hate crimes legislation --- which I'm also against.
Does "hate" make the crime worse? Does burning a flag while committing treason make the treason worse? (I know some of you will say yes there.)
As others have mentioned, it's also a minor infringement on property rights, as long as it's your own flag.
I'd also be wary that if burning one symbol is made illegal, what is next? Burning effigies of politicians (Republicans, of course) --- I've seen it, and it bothers me more than burning a flag does. Actually got yelled at by a hippy for calling the burner an idiot. (Sorry for the slippery slope argument).
I can't even say I'd never, ever burn the flag. (The skies still appear to be clear outside ...) It's a symbol ... but what if it someday becomes a symbol of something I no longer support? I could never see not supporting the government of my country ... but I'm sure many of the Founding Fathers didn't expect it to happen, either.
If the American flag is, twenty years from now, revised with a big portait of Quenn Hillary in the middle, wouldn't you be tempted to burn it?
Of course, the lack of the right to burn a flag at that point would be the least of our problems.
That said, one of the coolest things I've ever seen photos of is Rick Monday snatching Old Glory from some flag-buring idiots. Think about it - when a flag is burned in this country, who's side usually comes out looking better? If you support a flag-burning amendment for purely symbolic reasons -- and many of you do -- what's a more powerful symbol, a lone ballplayer saving the flag from desecration, or police in riot gear beating down a lone flag-burner?
The former, which is exactly the point I've been making.
Thank you.
It's not just an opinion, it's assault. You know the old saying- your rights end where my nose begins. You have no more right to assault a flag-burner than he does to douse you in lighter fluid and turn you into a torch.
A flag burner says, "No speech is more pure than my burning a flag in public." If that's so, then certainly the converse is true: no speech is more pure than acting to prevent the burning of that flag in public.
Your own words show that you dpn't understand - "acting"? Sheesh.
Remedial constitution here - you have the right to free speech that does not cause actual harm to another person. And no, hurt feelings don't count. So the flag-burner has the right to burn a flag, and the anti-flag-burner has the right to exclaim loudly what a jerk the flag-burner is, say that he doesn't deserve that freedom, put up a banner decrying the flag-burner, burn the flag-burner in effigy or any number of other modes of speech. He does not have the right to use physical violence to suppress speech just because he doesn't like it.
You are arguing that only side should be recognized and that government should punish anyone who disagrees.
Nonsense. That's just silly. Everyone has the right to disagree with the free speech of the flag-burner. They may respond with speech of their own. They just can't respond with violence - that's not speech in this country. That's just not the way we do things here.
"Flag Protection: New Poll Shows Over 80 Percent of Americans Support It"
No, 80% of those polled support it.
I do not think that means what you think it it means.
LOL - good point.
Oh, but wait - polls that support our personal preferences are right and true, while polls that don't support our personal preferences are slanted and biased. ;)
No, the Constitution draws the line, not a majority vote.
We can not yell "fire" in a crowded theater because we deemed it illegal and wrote laws to prevent it.
Yelling fire can be banned not because the people decided to ban it, but because it does not fall under free speech as protected by the Constitution.
We can not threaten the president's life because we supported laws to prevent it.
Death threats are not Constitutionally protected.
Whether you agree with it or not in this instance, there is no principle-of-the-thing to prevent We the People from doing so again.
Flag-burning is covered by the 1st Amendment. Otherwise, there would be no reason to amend the Constitution in order to ban flag-burning.
Who exactly do you think wrote the Constitution if not "We the People"...
This makes a lot of sense. Let's criminalize burning a flag that was probably made in Thailand.
That's right. Which means it is completely legal to speak out against our respective leaders. Just as it's completely legal to burn a piece of cloth that is a symbol. You know you're dangerously close to the Alien and Sedition Acts the Framers, namely Jefferson, saw fit to throw out.
Yes but you can't point that out. It may become an 'interest' to protect Thailand (or seek regime change in depending on current political winds) because they make nylon American flags
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.