Flag amendment apparently stalls in Senate [Democrats put forth an alternate - Durbin]

Yahoo ^

[durasell]

I believe that "acts" are included in forms of expression. For instance, a protest march is an act. So is a ballet.

[nmh]

"In 1776, or in 1789, do you think our Founding Fathers would have opposed flag burning? I think not!"

You'd better read your history books.

Those that SPOKE against the colonies were branded for TREASON. In those days people were more respectful and valued their country more than most people today. It's sad to see all these immature excuses for flag burning.

[nmh]

"Freedom of speech means the right to offend others through spoken words, written words and symbolic acts."

Speech is either oral or written.

Acts are NOT speech.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

What if cops simply arrested the flag burners on charges of creating a public hazard or some such?

That happened in Gainesville some years back. IIRC, some idiot burned an American flag as part of an "art project." He was cited for burning without a permit.

[nmh]

"Burning a flag is speech, it's stupid speech, but it's speech."

Burning a flag is NOT speech. It is an ACT.

[bullseye1]

As if flag burning is rampant anyway...Do you really think we need this amendment?? Congress can't think of anything better to worry about?

Don't be concerned with the symbol, be worried about what it stands for. This amendment is a door that shouldn't be opened.

[billbears]

Still off. Did the government give me the right to express myself or does that right exist separate from government? And I'll ask the same question of you. Let's say I have $10 to blow. I drive down to Wal-Mart and buy a flag. Now that flag, contrary to 'conservative' thought, is a copy and belongs to me by all understanding of private property rights. If you choose to pass an Amendment to ban flag burning, you are infringing upon my personal property rights. All to protect a copy of a symbol.

Now I realize some may have a certain overwhelming loyalty to a symbol (of which I honestly do not understand) but are you willing to infringe upon the age old ideal of personal property rights to protect a copy of a symbol?

Please note however I don't own a flag, I don't plan on owning a flag, and I wouldn't bother to burn one. But what does concern me is a very slippery slope against personal property rights that would be infringed upon by such an Amendment

[durasell]

That happened in Gainesville some years back. IIRC, some idiot burned an American flag as part of an "art project." He was cited for burning without a permit.




Sounds good to me. Let'em cool their heels in the pokey for the night.

[Dimensio]

My opinion is that those who choose to desecreate a US flag do not deserve the attention and self-proclaimed martyrdom that arresting them for their actions would provide. The specific act of flag desecration does not itself injure or threaten the safety of anyone, thus there is no reason to restrict such actions; laws should exist to protect and/or secure the welfare of individuals or society at large, and legal restrictions against "flag desecration" protect neither individuals nor society.

The paralell that nmh draws between rape and flag burning is clearly absurd. Rape is not outlawed merely because it is an act of "disrespect". If laws were based upon disrespect, then giving "the finger" would be a criminal act. Rape is outlawed because it creates a victim; laws against rape are meant to punish those who create victims and to offer incentive for others to refrain from creating victims. Flag desecration creates no victims; there is no means to show that any individual has been in any way negatively impacted as a result of one emotionally distrbued individual purchasing a flag from a store and subsequently defacing it.

Outlawing flag desecration serves only to "protect" the emotional security of those who would otherwise be offended by a small, insignificant fool who for reasons of mental illness believes that this country is so terrible that desecration of one of its symbols is an appropriate expression. Laws should not exist merely to prevent offense. In fact, I have heard many conservatives explicitly state that "there is no right not to be offended". I find it curious that at least some of these conservatives wish to write such a right into the US Constitution, at least as far as it concerns their offense. It would seem to me that such individuals are holding a double-standard.

[Piedra79]

You mentioned god in an earlier post....isn't practicing idolatry breaking one of the commandments?

[nmh]

"But let me also say that disrespecting a symbol is different than disrespecting a person. Symbols are not afforded the same rights as people for obvious reasons, unless an actual person becomes a symbol. "

The flag represents a country, the U.S.. It disrespects patriots, alive and dead. Perhaps some are not that live here. Then my best advice to them is to leave and find a country that you can respect.

For some, pissing in a jar with a cross in it is "art". The cross is just a "symbol" however it is offensive to those that hold that symbol dear to their heart. It represents what Christ did for them on that object. It's insulting to desecrate it in such a manner.

[Young Scholar]

I don't support an ammendment banning the practice, but if someone's going to burn the flag, he should wrap himself in it first.

The furthest any ammendment should go is to allow the federal government to make laws banning flag burning, so the particular language of the ban is not fixed in the Constitution. I would oppose even this, but it would be far better than an ammendment banning the practice outright.

[durasell]

Wait, wait...suppose you dropped the $10 bill in the parking lot of wal-mart and I picked it up, went in and bought a Neil Diamond's Greatest Hits album (I know, I know, but I'm drunk or something).

Now I own the album. Does that give me the right to make endless copies of it and ship them to China to satisfy the musical cravings of tens of millions of Neil Diamond fans?

Limitations are placed on private property all the time.

[nmh]

"Giving somebody the finger is an ACT, but it says something too."

Yeah, in New Jersey it's an ILLEGAL ACT and you will be ARRESTED.

No kidding!

It's just a "act" but it has a consequence - be arrested and people are arrested for it. So ACTS are not immune to prosecution.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

The flag represents a country, the U.S.. It disrespects patriots, alive and dead. Perhaps some are not that live here. Then my best advice to them is to leave and find a country that you can respect.

For some, pissing in a jar with a cross in it is "art". The cross is just a "symbol" however it is offensive to those that hold that symbol dear to their heart. It represents what Christ did for them on that object. It's insulting to desecrate it in such a manner.

Some find the depiction of Mohammad to be offensive and a desecration.

[Piedra79]

And perhaps someday it will come before the supreme court and they will strike that stupid law down too.

[durasell]

Let me note -- the only reason they burn the flag is that it almost always gets a rise out of people.

[Dimensio]

The flag represents a country, the U.S.. It disrespects patriots, alive and dead.

You have provided no justification for criminal penalties against "disrespect".

For some, pissing in a jar with a cross in it is "art". The cross is just a "symbol" however it is offensive to those that hold that symbol dear to their heart. It represents what Christ did for them on that object. It's insulting to desecrate it in such a manner.

That some find the sight insulting does not justify criminal penalties for creating such a sight.

[the anti-liberal]

"I believe that "acts" are included in forms of expression. For instance, a protest march is an act. So is a ballet."

OK-

But marching generally only involves walking on a street - simple movement of one's own body, and ballet also only involves (more complex and certainly more beautiful) movements of one's own body, these are both fundamentally different than taking an object that is not a part of one's own body and changing it's composition.

They are both activities, certainly, but one involves acting upon an object, while the other is mere manipulation of one's own extremities.

Raising one's own finger or opening one's own mouth is different than intentionally destroying an external physical object.

I can see this difference as being the demarcation separating one act as protected expression and the other as a prosecutable activity.

[Young Scholar]

That might be the dumbest post I've ever seen. Unfortunately for you, you decided to hit "Post" and allow the rest of the world to draw an opinion about you from it.