Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flag Protection: New Poll Shows Over 80 Percent of Americans Support It
US Newswire ^ | 6/20/05

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: flag; flagamendment; flagburning; flagprotection; news; oldglory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-213 next last
To: TheOtherOne

Brilliant comic.


61 posted on 06/20/2005 12:44:26 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

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


62 posted on 06/20/2005 12:44:28 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
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.

63 posted on 06/20/2005 12:47:31 PM PDT by Texas Federalist (No matter what my work/play ratio is, I am never a dull boy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
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.

64 posted on 06/20/2005 12:49:37 PM PDT by houeto ("Mr. President , close our borders now!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
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.
65 posted on 06/20/2005 12:50:04 PM PDT by so_real ("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
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.

66 posted on 06/20/2005 12:50:58 PM PDT by JCEccles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: so_real
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.

67 posted on 06/20/2005 12:51:43 PM PDT by Modernman ("Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

The other 20% were either liberals or illegals.


68 posted on 06/20/2005 12:53:25 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (My tagline is currently being blocked by Congressional filibuster for being to harsh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheForceOfOne

How are they different?


69 posted on 06/20/2005 12:55:53 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: billbears

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....


70 posted on 06/20/2005 12:56:02 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: No Dems 2004
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.

71 posted on 06/20/2005 12:59:24 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
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?

72 posted on 06/20/2005 12:59:32 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NC28203

73 posted on 06/20/2005 1:00:20 PM PDT by RS (Just because they are out to get him, it doesn't mean he's not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
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."

74 posted on 06/20/2005 1:01:26 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Quality of Life': another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius

Do you also support cross burning?


75 posted on 06/20/2005 1:02:35 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Quality of Life': another name for the slippery slope into barbarism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles

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


76 posted on 06/20/2005 1:03:07 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

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


77 posted on 06/20/2005 1:03:11 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Codeflier

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


78 posted on 06/20/2005 1:04:14 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
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.
79 posted on 06/20/2005 1:04:26 PM PDT by so_real ("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

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.


80 posted on 06/20/2005 1:04:29 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-213 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson