Flag Protection: New Poll Shows Over 80 Percent of Americans Support It

US Newswire ^ | 6/20/05

[Quick1]

Brilliant comic.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

What's the difference between Durbin's statements and doing the same?

[Texas Federalist]

What's the difference between Durbin's statements and doing the same?

Durbin's statements were far more damaging to the country than some hippie stoner burning a flag.

[houeto]

By that same standard, reasonable force by a private citizen to prevent the public burning of a flag can be considered symbolic free speech.

You are absolutely correct. Problem is, is that it is also considered assault and battery. Give it a whirl.

[so_real]

Burning the flag is a very clear political message. We might not like the message, but it is still speech.

But so is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There are limits even to the expression of free speech. Some of us simply find desecrating the symbol of our nation closer to yelling "Fire!" than others do.

[JCEccles]

If you want to punch him in the face, as you said earlier, you can do so at the risk of prosecution and a lawsuit.

That's not a problem if we write an exception in the law to allow the use of reasonable force to prevent the public desecration of the flag. We already have similar exceptions in defenses to criminal and civil assault where the assailant is acting to protect a third person.

The way I see it, when a flag burner makes his symbolic speech in public, and government stands in the background to punish a person who disagrees with that message and wishes to employ reasonable force to make his own point, then government has taken sides with the flag burner and forced everyone else to tacitly agree with HIS speech. That isn't fair.

Let's just take it out of the realm of public protection. You're free to desecrate the flag in public, and a veteran is free to punch you in the nose if you try.

Even steven.

[Modernman]

But so is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Absent a real fire, yelling "Fire" does not constitute Constitutionally-protected speech. It is closer to action, such as starting a real fire in the theatre.

[TheForceOfOne]

The other 20% were either liberals or illegals.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

How are they different?

[Sacajaweau]

Creating a flag for the ships was probably the most urgent thought for the flag. I always check my "old ship" steel engravings for the flag and count the stars if I can. Pretty important at the time....

[highball]

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with desecrating the American flag. If you have ever lived in countries that hate America or where hatred of America exists, believe me you would understand why I don't mind the flag being protected. The flag represents our country and it is totally stupid to let people burn the flag to show their rage against America.

I don't think this is taking away free speech from Americans.

So you think that an Amendment banning flag burning will somehow make a difference to the morons overseas who burn an American flag? Who shall enfore your silly law in Iran?

I'm not willing to molest the Constitution just to show a bunch of foreigners that their protests bother me.

[Publius Valerius]

Yes, defense of others--people. Not a piece of cloth. Sorry, you don't get to employ "reasonable" force to "make your own point." You don't get to kick a Nazi in the shin, you don't get to bomb an abortion clinic, you can't physically prevent women from getting an abortion, and you can't beat the hell out of a person who is burning the flag. Sorry. You can't do it. It IS fair. That's the way it is. Sorry you can't walk around beating people up. C'est la vie.

So then, in your world, does a third veteran have the right to beat up a veteran attacking a person buring a flag? Might as well make it a free-for-all, right? A free speech riot?

[RS]

[EternalVigilance]

I fully support the proposed amendment.

I also look forward to the debate; it is going to be a marvelous opportunity for all Americans to once again explore the meaning of Old Glory's symbolism.

Everyone could use a reminder.

"And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

[EternalVigilance]

Do you also support cross burning?

[highball]

Nice try, but force against a person is not speech. That's perhaps a subtle difference?

[Sacajaweau]

This law is "just in case" a whole bunch of folks wanna burn the flag.

[Zeroisanumber]

You can't spell "Republican Majority" without "Stupid Waste of Time".

[so_real]

Absent a real fire, yelling "Fire" does not constitute Constitutionally-protected speech. It is closer to action, such as starting a real fire in the theatre.

I don't gather how shouting "Fire!" is more of an *action* than striking a match and holding it to "Old Glory". Both are designed to illicit a response from the surrounding crowd. I may not support a Constitutional amendment to make it illegal, but I'm more likely to punch someone in the nose for burning the Flag than I am for yelling "Fire!". My two cents, anyway.

[Publius Valerius]

That's right.

If you damage the property of others, then a person is of course liable for that, but as far as the message goes? 100% protected.