House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

[blackheart]

What next, an amendment to call french fries freedom fries?

 

[GenMarshall]

WHY?!?!

What rmshape said pretty much sums it up.

By burning the American flag, they are demonstrating they are not productive members of this society.

I see buring the American flag as a sign of disrespect to one's own country.

 

[Harbringer]

I dont see why we should burn it, heres what i see. When you drop that flag its symbolic of America itself, we were once dropped to, we were rag tag country of militia barely fending of the British invasion. We rose up and defeated them. So dropping the flag is our downtime, but if you pick it bag up its symbolic of our resiliance, our bounce back on the brits. Sortoff a rising out of the ashes kinda thing.

 

[eyrei]

A flag is more than a piece of cloth, it is a symbol. You burn the American flag, you burn in effigy the American people, Constitution, and everything that is or was American. It is a spit in the collective face of every American who ever lived and ever shall live. What I find most disturbing about the ammendment is that my country has gotten to the point that Congress has to pass such an ammendment at all. It should be common sense to every American citizen that it is stupid to burn your own flag and doing so should be considered treason.

I think I may have to go burn a flag tomorrow while I think about how great the ideas of the founding fathers were and how petty and absurd our government has become just to prove you wrong...

 

[Yom]

What rmshape said pretty much sums it up.



I see buring the American flag as a sign of disrespect to one's own country.

Fine. Let us say that every individual that burns a flag is disrespectful to America (which is not the case). Even if that is the case, why should those individuals not be allowed to express their views? Proscribing flag-burning means that you are abridging the right to freedom of expression.

 

[Sims2789]

In the name of freedom we are restricting the rights of the people.

 

[Mise]

I see buring the American flag as a sign of disrespect to one's own country.

That's fine but since when has it been illegal to disrespect your own country?

 

[Yom]

I dont see why we should burn it, heres what i see. When you drop that flag its symbolic of America itself, we were once dropped to, we were rag tag country of militia barely fending of the British invasion. We rose up and defeated them. So dropping the flag is our downtime, but if you pick it bag up its symbolic of our resiliance, our bounce back on the brits. Sortoff a rising out of the ashes kinda thing.

That's all fine and dandy, but nobody here is saying that you should burn the flag; that's your own decision. We are arguing over whether or not one should be allowed to burn the flag. It seems like a pretty clear-cut choice to me: freedom or oppression.

 

[Rambuchan]

Sorry, I'm not voting - because it's very much American holy ground. I feel I have no input to make on it at all.

A bit like abortion - I feel, as a man, it's outside of my jurisdiction or indeed comprehension.

I will make no further posts on this thread - I try not to stick my nose into other people's business.

Ditto. Although I would say on my visits, and the brief time I went to school as a guest pupil with my cousin in America, that I find it a little obsessive the way the US flag is treated.

I found the who enterprise of pledging allegiance to the flag at the age of 6 or whatever it was totally bizarre and incomprehensible. Now I see it as something Aldous Huxley would have written about. Or Orwell for that matter.

That's it, I'm gone now.

 

[Padma]

I oppose this amendment.

I spent over 20 years of my life serving my country, defending the rights of her citizens. One right is the right to engage in political discourse, however distasteful it may be to me.

As Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

 

[luiz]

Indeed it's so obvious it hurts. Flag burning is harmless, hence it should be allowed.

As a side note, in Brazil(aka Crazy Regulations Land) there are many Laws regarding how one must "treat" the flag. There is a correct way to lift, we are forbidden of stepping on it, women cannot wear bikinis with the flag stepped on it, etc. Interestingly, some years ago an entire rock band was arrested for stepping in the national flag. The police officer in charge of the arrest said to the press:"They think that just because this Brazil they don't need to respect the nation. If this was the United States they would be spend years in jail for this!". Of course some reporter told him that it is perfectly fine to steo in the flag in the US, so hle looked really stupid.

 

[Yom]

I oppose this amendment.

I spent over 20 years of my life serving my country, defending the rights of her citizens. One right is the right to engage in political discourse, however distasteful it may be to me.

As Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

Nice post, but that quotation is actually misattributed. He did say something similar, though.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire#Misattributions

 

[ummmm........]

It's a little disturbing that the Senate is so close on this issue.

But the outcome of this poll is nice. And really, which is more important?

 

[GenMarshall]

Fine. Let us say that every individual that burns a flag is disrespectful to America (which is not the case). Even if that is the case, why should those individuals not be allowed to express their views?

They should not be allowed to express their views since, as I said before, flag burning is disrespectfull to the US. Its also a sign of hatred and rebelion agains the United States. Flag burning is also offensive to people who are patriotic and loyal to their country. I myself respect the flag. The only flag burning that I would support is the ritualized burning of old and worn out American flags by the American Legion and Boy Scouts.

Proscribing flag-burning means that you are abridging the right to freedom of expression.

If it means protecting a sacrate object, then I dont see it as abridging the right to freedom of expression.

 

[The Last Conformist]

They should not be allowed to express their views since, as I said before, flag burning is disrespectfull to the US.

That's a frankly scary idea. Why not ask for the 1st Amendment to be appealed when as it?

Yes, I know you said that

If it means protecting a sacrate object, then I dont see it as abridging the right to freedom of expression.

, but the fact that you don't see it that way doesn't change the fact it is that way.

 

[Yom]

They should not be allowed to express their views since, as I said before, flag burning is disrespectfull to the US. Its also a sign of hatred and rebelion agains the United States. Flag burning is also offensive to people who are patriotic and loyal to their country. I myself respect the flag. The only flag burning that I would support is the ritualized burning of old and worn out American flags by the American Legion and Boy Scouts.

There are several issues in this post. First of all, you explicitly say that the freedom of speech should be restricted. What's implicit is that it should be restricted to views with which you agree. Just because you respect the U.S. doesn't mean that everyone else has to do the same (even though, once again, those who burn the U.S. flag in the U.S. rarely are doing it because they are disrespecting the U.S.). This is the most dangerous thing that you are implying, and it is present in your comment about its offensiveness. Whether or not a view is offensive has nothing to do with whether or not it should be allowed. Unless the expression is doing tangible harm, freedom of expression should be absolute. Harm that is not brought on by the view, like when someone gets offended, which gives him higher blood pressure because he chose to be offended (and let's remember that nothing is inherently offensive), means nothing and should have no bearing on the restriction of expression.

If it means protecting a sacrate object, then I dont see it as abridging the right to freedom of expression.

Nothing is sacred.

Either way, your view doesn't change the fact that you are abridging that right. Moreover, the object is not owned by the collective, but rather by the individual who purchased it. If I wish, then I can destroy my property (so long as I don't affect others). The same holds true in the case of flags, which are owned by individuals, not the collective.

 

[Damnyankee]

I am against it(the ammendment) simply for the reason that it goes against the 1st ammendment. Though I don't support people actually burning the flag, what would happen if we actually added an amendment which would contradict the 1st ammendment? What would this open the gates for? This would become a precendent from which any part of free speech can be banned. Excluding the obvious exceptions that should exist like not screaming fire in a theater, maybe in a climate of paranoia, this would open up for Loyalist ammendments, from which any dissenting comments might be against the law. God forbide another terror attack, and such an ammendment has already been passed, would you be prepared to live in a Stalinist society? Without a full and unquestioned 1st ammendment, you have a dictatorship.

 

[Shadylookin]

once again you peope do realize the only proper way to retire a US flag is to burn it. The boy scouts of america do it, and you'd have a tough time trying to convince someone that they are an unpatriotic lot

 

[DBear]

Here's how it really works:

Protesters have the right to burn the flag. They also have the right to a if they ever try it.

 

[Lord_all_Mighty]

This amendment is both ridiculous and dangerous. As it has been said, it abridges on one's freedom of speech and might even open a pandora's box for whatever else might be considered "unpatriotic".