House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I'm an American Soldier. I absolutely and emphatically oppose this amendment. I've risked my life for the freedoms I so cherish and expect even very offensive ones, such as burning the Flag, to remain as a freedom of expression.

 

[blackheart]

This reminds me, for some reason, of a protest that happened in Garden Grove, California some years ago by members of the Viet Namese community there.

They were protesting some people that were displaying the flag of Communist Viet Nam. They were very adamant that these people shouldn't be able to display these flags, and there were a lot of them.

I was taking the 22 Fwy home from work when I heard about this ongoing demonstration. I immediately got off the freeway, turned around and joined a small group of people that felt as I did and had spontaneously begun a counter protest.

These Viet Namese had a very good reason for maybe being offended by the display of the communist flag, but they didn't have a very good understanding of their adopted nation and what we hold dear.

They came here for the freedom but then wanted to take it away from some people because they disagreed with what they are saying. They just didn't understand the utter hypocrisy in their actions, which drove me nuts.

The same thing applies here. The flag wavers that want to ban flag burning are just lacking a real understanding of what America stands for....kind of strange.

This amendment is totally anti-American. If they don't like the freedom America allows, why wave the flag in the first place. Very odd.

I remember that incident. Last I recall, they protested, not riot, so that was within their legal rights to do so. It was the flag of communist Vietnam, it was a giant picture of Ho Chi Minh. You really don't get it from the Vietnamese perspective. Most of the people there were Southern Vietnamese who had fled Vietnam due to communist oppression, so it would be like Jews protesting someone hanging the Nazi Swatstika in a very public place.

 

[Keirador]

Oh, sure. This amendment is a real disappointment. I mean, afterall, it's limiting our freedom of expression, right? Hell, like I said, we need to make house burning legal also! That way we can express our dislike for someone.

Honestly, anyone who needs to burn something to express themselves is pitiful.

Except when you burn someone's house, you're destroying another's property or endangering another's life. Steal a flag, or wrap a person up in a flag and the burn it, sure, you should be arrested. A flag which is your personal property should be desecratable at your discretion. Disrespecting America is not a crime, nor should it be one. If we are forced to respect America at all times, it will cease to be something worthy of true respect.

 

[GenMarshall]

I vote no because traditional flag etiquette states that, if the flag is too dirty to appear respectful when flown, it must be ceremonially burned rather than washed. Any amendment to the constitution banning flag burning also bans proper flag etiquette.

This statement has gotten me to think more deaply about this. If there was a flag burning ban, then what to do with the dirty and ragged flags? Since "Any amendment to the constitution banning flag burning also bans proper flag etiquette."

The same thing applies here. The flag wavers that want to ban flag burning are just lacking a real understanding of what America stands for....kind of strange.

I myself dont understand about flag burning. I only see it as a disrespectfull un-American act because I see people in the Middle East burning flags of the US.

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.

Actualy, I dont beleve the freedom of speach should be restricted. I just dont like and dont understand the reason behind flag burning when not used in context to disrespect American patriots.

I still beleve that flag burning is wrong, but a person has a right to engage in political discourse. I have given this a thought after Padma posted and reading through the posts in this subject has gotten me thinking of how my Grandfather (Korean War Vet) and my Great Uncle (Vietnam War Vet) who both served their country to ensure that we have the rights civilians enjoy. As Pointed out, as what Voltaire said (Though its a misattribution) "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!", that statement brought forth my relatives who fought to defend our liberties.

I would like to say that I oppose this admendment and would request that my vote to be changed to "I am American and I oppose It"

 

[VoodooAce]

I remember that incident. Last I recall, they protested, not riot, so that was within their legal rights to do so. It was the flag of communist Vietnam, it was a giant picture of Ho Chi Minh. You really don't get it from the Vietnamese perspective. Most of the people there were Southern Vietnamese who had fled Vietnam due to communist oppression, so it would be like Jews protesting someone hanging the Nazi Swatstika in a very public place.

You don't know what I understand and don't understand.

You're wrong. I do get it from their perspective....I understand that they found it hurtful and offensive. I totally understood then, and understand now.

Doesn't change anything, though.

And people do display swastikas and its not illegal. Its their right to look foolish. Just as it was those Viet Namese's right to look foolish displaying the communist flag and pictures of Ho Chi Minh even though they were here to enjoy our freedom that the guy they were posting pictures of would have had them killed for it.

You shouldn't assume what I understand and don't understand. You heard about it....I was there.

 

[Keirador]

The only possible justification for illegalizing flag burnings is the safety issue. You're not allowed to start outdoor fires in urban areas or towns because it might get out of control, and that's in a container. It does seem rather unsafe to set a flag on fire without a container, around a crowd of people. If the Republicans wanted to outlaw flag-burning, that would be the way to do it. I couldn't complain much if they simply limited it on account of safety rather than on account of the symbolism it entails- after all, aren't we as a society being hypocritical saying it's not OK to start a bonfire in your yard, but it is OK to set a fire within a group of people?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

So the protesters are trying to change something when then they burn the flag saying they hate America thus stopping any change from happening? (Unless their doing an Anti-American protest, but in America?!? Do they want to be shot?)

Maybe they should try not to get drunk before protesting next time.

Oh, I fully agree that virtually all forms of protest are worthless and rarely, if ever, change anything, but I'm just stating the facts as to the usual circumstance of flag burning. It's usually done in public, so laws against it would be relatively easy to enforce.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: CivGeneral's Vote in the poll changed from support to oppose.

 

[Strider]

Except when you burn someone's house, you're destroying another's property or endangering another's life. Steal a flag, or wrap a person up in a flag and the burn it, sure, you should be arrested. A flag which is your personal property should be desecratable at your discretion. Disrespecting America is not a crime, nor should it be one. If we are forced to respect America at all times, it will cease to be something worthy of true respect.

I already know everything your telling me, I was using that as a type of expression. To co-align with my, "anyone who needs to burn something to express themselves is pitiful."

True expression doesn't come in the destruction of objects, the burning of flags, nor the toppling of statues. It comes from words.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

True expression doesn't come in the destruction of objects, the burning of flags, nor the toppling of statues. It comes from words.

Disagree. A picture is worth a 1000 words, and a video is worth a 1000 pictures. A video of flag burning is worth 1 million words. Even if it is done by a dumb@$$.

 

[Keirador]

I already know everything your telling me, I was using that as a type of expression. To co-align with my, "anyone who needs to burn something to express themselves is pitiful."

True expression doesn't come in the destruction of objects, the burning of flags, nor the toppling of statues. It comes from words.

I can understand not supporting the burning of flags, I think it's stupid as well. But do you support the criminalization of flag burning?

 

[Strider]

Disagree. A picture is worth a 1000 words, and a video is worth a 1000 pictures. A video of flag burning is worth 1 million words. Even if it is done by a dumb@$$.

Pictures are not capable of expressing much more than .00001 second. As for videos, most of them have words and it's often those words, and not the video, the makes the differance.

The greatest men in the world, were not great because they took pictures, or they made movies. They are great, because of there ability to effect others with what they say (or what they say in there movies).

Julius Ceaser
George Washington
Napoleon
Benjamin Franklin

The list goes on and on. The only "true" form of expression is speech.

 

[Strider]

I can understand not supporting the burning of flags, I think it's stupid as well. But do you support the criminalization of flag burning?

Not overly, there's no real point to it. Anyway, no one has ever been able to achieve anything by burning a flag. Not counting making opposition to the act, or getting yourself caught on fire.

 

[Azadre]

I say we expel the people that do it. By burning the American flag, they are demonstrating they are not productive members of this society.

We could also require High School diplomas, but that wouldn't be right, would it?

 

[Bootstoots]

I am an American who is completely and wholeheartedly opposed to this amendment. The restriction of freedoms we already have is not something to be taken lightly (or done at all, for that matter, unless the freedoms are very seriously threatening others' safety) and it would be utterly hypocritical to override the First Amendment to outlaw free expression of a certain "distasteful" opinion. I will support my country if and only if it guarantees a high degree of freedom for its citizens; the fact that one can express using symbolism that they hate their country is one of the most significant reasons I like the USA. And if this amendment is passed, I will take up a flag, a lighter, lighter fluid, and a car to get me to the nearest protest: not because I hate my country itself, but because I would hate the decision to restrict a very important freedom in a completely illogical way.

Additionally, I find it ironic that some of the people who support this amendment the most are those who fought to protect our freedoms (though I appreciate the statements to the contrary by a couple of veterans in this thread). They would die to protect our freedoms, but are perfectly willing to support the repeal of one such freedom by legislation anyway. Where's the logic in that?

 

[VoodooAce]

And if this amendment is passed, I will take up a flag, a lighter, lighter fluid, and a car to get me to the nearest protest: not because I hate my country itself, but because I would hate the decision to restrict a very important freedom in a completely illogical way.

Additionally, I find it ironic that some of the people who support this amendment the most are those who fought to protect our freedoms (though I appreciate the statements to the contrary by a couple of veterans in this thread). They would die to protect our freedoms, but are perfectly willing to support the repeal of one such freedom by legislation anyway. Where's the logic in that?

No doubt. If this were to pass, which it won't, there would be more flags burnt in the next week than have probably been, total, to date.

And I am one of those that volunteered and served (three years and, luckily, during peace time....but just miles from the Fulda Gap in Germany where my life expectancy were war to start, was about 40 minutes). A lot of these flag wavers avoid the service like the plague.

 

[Colonel]

Just a thought but I happen to have the Constution and I seem to remeber this little thing called the first amendment in which it states

or abridging the freedom of speech

so in effect this Amendment is unconstutionial.

But that is not the real point, this thing will never pass the Senate simply because it is a thing that gets brought up every so often and get rejected everytime, the only place this is being fought about is in ultra right winger hell holes and in the House of Representives which argues about so much stuff that half the time it is not worth it to listen to.

 

[VoodooAce]

You're right, Col., it is unconstitutional....now. But they actually want to amend (change ) the constitution. Yes, ridiculous, I know.

 

[Yom]

Oh, sure. This amendment is a real disappointment. I mean, afterall, it's limiting our freedom of expression, right? Hell, like I said, we need to make house burning legal also! That way we can express our dislike for someone.

Honestly, anyone who needs to burn something to express themselves is pitiful.

Hey, why stop at flag burning!? Let's make house burning legal also!

Houseburning should be legal so long as the proper precautions are taken. If the house is near other houses, then the person cannot burn his or her house unless he or she constructs some sort of fire-proof barrier that will prevent fire from spreading to the other person's property. So long as the fire will not spread to the property of others, then by all means, burn down your house. If it does spread, however, then you are guilty of the destruction of that person's property.

 

[Yom]

Actualy, I dont beleve the freedom of speach should be restricted. I just dont like and dont understand the reason behind flag burning when not used in context to disrespect American patriots.

I still beleve that flag burning is wrong, but a person has a right to engage in political discourse. I have given this a thought after Padma posted and reading through the posts in this subject has gotten me thinking of how my Grandfather (Korean War Vet) and my Great Uncle (Vietnam War Vet) who both served their country to ensure that we have the rights civilians enjoy. As Pointed out, as what Voltaire said (Though its a misattribution) "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!", that statement brought forth my relatives who fought to defend our liberties.

I would like to say that I oppose this admendment and would request that my vote to be changed to "I am American and I oppose It"

I'm glad that you have realized the error in your viewpoint, but I'd like to point out that you, in fact, did say that you wanted freedom of speech to be abridged.

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

Let us end this discussion now, though.

I already know everything your telling me, I was using that as a type of expression. To co-align with my, "anyone who needs to burn something to express themselves is pitiful."

True expression doesn't come in the destruction of objects, the burning of flags, nor the toppling of statues. It comes from words.

Pictures are not capable of expressing much more than .00001 second. As for videos, most of them have words and it's often those words, and not the video, the makes the differance.

The greatest men in the world, were not great because they took pictures, or they made movies. They are great, because of there ability to effect others with what they say (or what they say in there movies).

Julius Ceaser
George Washington
Napoleon
Benjamin Franklin

The list goes on and on. The only "true" form of expression is speech.

I disagree wholeheartedly. While words are certainly an integral part of expression, there are millions of ways by which one can express oneself. In fact, every action that one takes can be construed as an expression of oneself, whether it be through painting, one's style of clothes, words, actions, or photography. You cannot seriously say that paintings do not serve as a conduit for artist's beliefs; painting is just as much integral to freedom of expression as writing (whether it be overtly expressive of your views, or hidden inside a play or literary work).