House passes power to ban flag burning - On to Senate

[NJCubScouter]

For anyone who doesn't understand why flag burning is a free speech issue, here is some recommended reading:

 

Texas v. Street, the Supreme Court case that started it all:

 

http://tinyurl.com/5lnfd

 

And here is an article about the issue:

 

http://tinyurl.com/cftyr

[Rooster7]

To the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" fear mongers on this forum,

 

How consistent are you? How do you feel about hate crime laws? Do they infringe on freedom of speech? If the penalty for a crime is greater for an individual that holds certain viewpoints than someone who does not, doesn't that infringe on one's right to freedom of speech - heck, it's an infringement on freedom of thought. Yet, I'd be willing to bet most of you don't cry foul when a hate crime law is passed. I don't advocate bigotry, but I can't see giving someone 10 more years of prison time because the jury was convinced by a clever prosecutor that the defendant use to tell off color jokes or has a few buddies that haven't joined the rest of the civilized world. The point being, a crime - say murder, should carry the same penalty for a hateful bigot as it does for an amoral moron who just doesnt care about anyone else.

 

[GernBlansten]

Well, put me down for consistancy.

I think hate crime legistlation is a joke. Do the crime, do the time. No matter your motive.

BTW, hate crime legislation has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[evmori]

We don't need hate crime laws and we don't need a flag burning amendment. We need less government intervention not more!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

How about an amendment to require all flags be made of flameproof material like Nomex.

[johndaigler]

Rooster, though you're turning up the rhetorical heat a bit, I'm not sure I disagree with you, but you've isolated one scenario - I think there are other examples that may show the need (or atleast the public's appreciation) for situationally-specific laws. Crimes against children are more harshly punished than crimes against adults. Crimes against civil servants are more harshly punished than crimes against others.

 

Your post could be used as an argument against the proposed amendment. Would you make crimes against one piece of cloth more harshly punished than crimes against others? Would you give the govt. control over just this one piece of your personal property, or will you let them control others?

 

jd

[gavvin]

Disclaimer: I have not read all the posts on this topic as I am short of time. If I post something that is redundant, please excuse me.

 

I am an Eagle Scout, Gulf War Era veteran, father of 3, Asst Cubmaster, and against the proposed flag buring ammendment.

 

Why?

 

It is pretty much summed up by this anonymous quote, "I prefer someone who burns the flag and wraps himself in the Constitution to someone who burns the Constitution and wraps himself in the flag."

 

or as Neal Boortz put it.. "Any law or Constitutional amendment barring burning of the U.S. Flag is an attack on political speech. I have never seen an instance of a flag burning where the person burning the flag was not making a political statement. Those political statements, whether we agree with them or not, deserve the full protection of our Constitution. Once you have singled out one particular form of political speech as a crime, how difficult is it to move down that road just a bit further ... first banning this and then that form of political speech?"

 

If we start banning unpopular political speech, what makes us any different from Communist China? (that is a rhetorical question to which I already know the answer.)

[Rooster7]

Lets make a big assumption. Those of us, who support this amendment on its merits, are also big advocates of free speech. If so, why do we think flag burning is different from other forms of speech? Why is this kind of political statement unacceptable?

 

I have a thought or two on this. If one burns a flag from another country, then one is obviously condemning that foreign government and/or its people. If one burns a flag that represents an organization (foreign or domestic), then one is condemning that particular organization. When one burns the U.S. flag, he is condemning the American government and her people. The very same government and people that the Constitution was written to sustain and protect. Burning the U.S. flag in America is tantamount to taking a ship to sea and setting it ablaze. That ship was built for a purpose. She safely carries not only you, but many other passengers, across a treacherous ocean. So when you mess with that ship, it inflames the ire of many. This is no ordinary form of protest. It is one that should not be tolerated. Many Americans, who love this country and its Constitution, do not see flag burning as free speech, but mutiny.

 

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Condemn or protest? I love this country and I love and respect the flag. I always put a new flag on my WWII USMC veteran dad's grave several times a year. I even fly the flag from a 16 ft flag pole in my front yard. It even has a spotlight so I can fly it 24/7. As much as I love the flag and what it stands for, if the government tries to kick me out of my house and off my land so a hotel chain can build a hotel as the (Republican nominated) supreme court ruled yesterday, I might be moved to protest my government at that point. The constitution gives me the right to make my feelings known. While burning the flag to voice my opinion is an option, I can never imagine myself doing it. But I have the right to do it and I don't want the government infringing even further on my rights by telling me I can't. My protest would be against the government, not the people of the US.

 

Again, this is for political posturing. It is a PR opportunity. How often do you see US flags ablaze in your community? Here in Oklahoma I see illegal aliens every single day. I want my representatives taking care of the important pressing problems of the day. Things like national security. Not photo ops.

[Rooster7]

While burning the flag to voice my opinion is an option, I can never imagine myself doing it. But I have the right to do it and I don't want the government infringing even further on my rights by telling me I can't. My protest would be against the government, not the people of the US.

 

Fine. Go out and protest against the current administration. But the flag does not represent Republicans, Democrats, or whoever happens to be calling the shots. It represents our form of government and the people who support it. No one is saying you cant burn an effigy of your favorite politician. But burning the flag goes beyond protest. I see it as spitting in the collective eye of every American and especially those who have made sacrifices for this country. Some of your country men have died carrying that flag into battle. Thats not a clich. Its a reality that we need to recognize, remember, and respect.

 

Again, this is for political posturing. It is a PR opportunity. How often do you see US flags ablaze in your community? Here in Oklahoma I see illegal aliens every single day. I want my representatives taking care of the important pressing problems of the day. Things like national security. Not photo ops.

 

Spoken like a true liberal. Speaking of posturing, I like how you turned a debate on flag burning into an opportunity to slander conservative politicians. If some representatives want an amendment to protect the U.S. flag, does that mean they are incapable of working other issues? Try this word: Multi-tasking.

 

[johndaigler]

Rooster - You're metaphor doesn't work. Mutiny? IMHO, burning the flag is more appropriately compared to an op-ed piece in the local paper in which I criticize the mayor or the President, or more accurately, the govt. as a whole. Aside from local fire safety laws, a flag burner isn't harming anyone, he/she isn't weakening this nation, he/she is making a politically charged statement. Why would we give this political statement more value than others? Why would we be more afraid of these types of statements than others?

 

The flag is a symbol - a privately owned one. If I choose to burn my own property, who is to stop me and why would my actions be a crime against the Constitution of the US? A crime against the people of the US? Hardly.

 

BTW, going back to hate crimes for a minute . . . Hate crimes are not like other crimes because of their terror aspect. They are crimes which diminish whole groups of people. I doubt anyone here would suggest that 9/11 was merely equivalent to the murder of ~3000 people.

 

jd

 

PS> R7, you can't have it both ways . . .

 

"4) The people who will fight this law the most, are those politically spiteful ideologues who love to inflict anguish and distress on those who truly love this country."

 

"Spoken like a true liberal. Speaking of posturing, I like how you turned a debate on flag burning into an opportunity to slander conservative politicians."

 

 

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[dsteele]

Lots of food for thought, at least for me, in this thread. I've read the opinions posted here and found that I have no strong objections to any of them. Indeed, I can understand where the opinions are coming from.

 

Speaking only for myself, I have decided that I am opposed to the amendment and will not vote for it should it be brought to the states to ratify.

 

I am opposed to burning the flag as a symbol of protest. I am for freedom of speech/expression.

 

However, I do not think the American experience with negative amendments is a good one. In other words, if you want an American to do something, the best motivation is to tell them they can't.

 

As a reference, I give you the Volstead act which brought us those cheerful days of prohibition.

 

I have no problem with laws that prohibit certain activities. I do have a problem with a constitution that tells us what we can NOT do.

 

Thank you for helping me to clarify, at least in my own mind, the way I will vote if the issue comes to my local ballot box.

 

Unc.

[Rooster7]

Hate crimes are not like other crimes because of their terror aspect. They are crimes which diminish whole groups of people.

 

The problem with hate crimes is that they hinge on what someone believes or said as opposed to what they did. Furthermore, these laws devalue the victims of the same crime which apparently were not motivated by ethnic hatred (or hate for some special group e.g. homosexuals). If your brother was dragged to death by some idiot with a pickup truck, would you deem his suffering less worthy of punishment then that of James Byrd?

 

As to me having it both ways I am, perhaps, guilty as charged. Occasionally, I loose my focus. So Ill give you your due. However, I do not believe its fair to describe the politicians who support this amendment as posturing. It is insulting to those who support such politicians. The inference being not only is our logic flawed, but we are deceived by the people we support.

 

You know - it's quite possible that these politicians are just as passionate about the issue as their supporters. Don't assume its all about garnering votes.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[johndaigler]

R7, first, thanks for your response. It helped me see that I was ratcheting up the rhetoric, as well.

 

Second, murdering my brother hits close to home. But suppose some distant relative in a distant country was murdered "because he was a Daigler, and all Daigler's should die." The crime would put much more fear or whatever into my life, than if it was a random idiot who happened to pick a victim named Daigler.

 

Now, suppose, in my own town their are Daigler's, though not related closely to me, they share my last name. The crime against one of these Daigler's (because he is a Daigler) is much more relevant to me and threatens my safety, my family, and my ability to live my life. The crime isn't just against the victim - it's against the people sharing that name. True, murder is murder, but I don't think we should discount the impact on all the other Daiglers.

 

jd

[hops_scout]

"The flag is a symbol - a privately owned one. If I choose to burn my own property, who is to stop me and why would my actions be a crime against the Constitution of the US?"

 

Arson. Just like if you were to burn down your house-- it's privately owned, correct?