House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

[The Last Conformist]

You know what? Flag burning is illegal in China. Yet it is not illegal in Western democratic countries like Australia and UK. I guess this is just another sign that the US is moving further and further away from the democratic ideal and closer to China.

In Sweden, it's illegal to "disrespect" the flag, which includes things like letting it touch the ground. I suppose we must be outright totalitarians?

 

[Uiler]

In Sweden, it's illegal to "disrespect" the flag, which includes things like letting it touch the ground. I suppose we must be outright totalitarians?

It's a question of when the law was passed. If it was a relic of by-gone-eras when kings ruled with absolute power and empires still existed then it's one thing. If it is a modern law that's being passed in a formerly liberal society then it's a different matter.

 

[Souron]

any protester could just claim they were disposing a flag and then the laws become meaningless.

in fact who burns American flags these days? why isn't congress trying to do something related to government function? Do they live in fear that somewhere someone might be doing something harmless, but they might find it offensive?

First it is necessary to write an ammendment allowing banning the burning of the american flag, then make laws that specifically define when it is ok or not ok to burn the US flag. Burning a flag in protest is highly distinguisable from burning the flag to dispose of it. If a person goes to trial on charges of flag burning, his own testimony that he just wanted to dispose of it would usually not be enough.

As for why House members are discussing this issue, I suppose it is just one of the more contrevercial things on there agenda. Many congressmens first priority is furthering there pary platform, which goes above trying to figure out how to make effective law.

 

[storealex]

The is yet an other small step away, from the ideals America claims to represent. With each step, this claim get's more hollow, and the ones making it more hypocrite.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

I find it strange how someone can become so fond of a flag, but anyway I'm glad you oppose the admendment.

I'm an idealist, so I support/oppose things quite strongly and freedom is something I defend quite strongly.

I believe strongly in symbolism. I believe words and symbols can hold great power (consider the Koran flushing story). The Flag has very special meaning for many reason, one of which is I've had the great honor to oversee the presentation of the burial Flag to a widow at a soldier's funeral.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It's a question of when the law was passed. If it was a relic of by-gone-eras when kings ruled with absolute power and empires still existed then it's one thing. If it is a modern law that's being passed in a formerly liberal society then it's a different matter.

Can't offhand find from then the law dates, but I doubt it dates to before the absolute monarchy fell in 1809.

 

[Uiler]

Now John Howard is an arch-conservative and a friend of Bush and even he thinks banning flag burning is crazy:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/15/1037080914583.html?oneclick=true

Prime Minister John Howard has defended the right of people to burn the Australian flag, saying that while repugnant, it was a matter of free speech.

But Deputy Prime Minister and National Party leader John Anderson disagreed, saying he would continue to lobby to make it illegal.

The issue has generated passionate debate within the coalition. Liberal Justice Minister Chris Ellison said flag burning should be an offence. He said his wife was giving him a flagpole for Christmas so he could fly the flag at home.

But others, including Victorian Liberal MP Tony Smith, cautioned against a ban. Mr Smith, the member for Casey, told a partyroom meeting that a ban would play into the hands of "repugnant exhibitionists".

Other Liberals and Nationals asked how such a ban would be policed. Would it apply to all flags and would it cover people who ripped or spat on the flag? Mr Howard yesterday said it was a difficult issue.

"I know my friend and colleague John Anderson's got a view on that and I know we'll kick it around," he told radio 3AW. "Despite my great affection for the Australian flag, I have stopped short of advocating that because, repugnant though it is to me, in the end I guess it's part of the sort of free speech code that we have in this country."

 

[ComradeDavo]

I'm an idealist, so I support/oppose things quite strongly and freedom is something I defend quite strongly.

I believe strongly in symbolism. I believe words and symbols can hold great power (consider the Koran flushing story). The Flag has very special meaning for many reason, one of which is I've had the great honor to oversee the presentation of the burial Flag to a widow at a soldier's funeral.

Ok, I guess we are gonna have to disagree on the smallprint

 

[IglooDame]

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

This has to be one of the most stupid things I've read coming from the mouth of an elected official in a long, long time.


Second, the amendment is not specifically outlawing flag-burning, it is outlawing flag desecration. Thus, ceremonial burning of old flags by Boy Scouts and the like would not be affected. And actually, it is not in and of itself outlawing flag desecration, it is granting Congress the power to do so, so (in answer to Stratego's question) I'd imagine we'd get volumes and volumes of "the definition of flag desecration".


Third, like others here, I've served in the military. At military funerals with full honors, I have presented widows the flags from their husbands' caskets. I have administered the Oath of Enlistment to hundreds of military recruits. And if and when this amendment is passed and flag desecration is outlawed, I will go out and burn a flag in protest.

 

[Grisu]

This has to be one of the most stupid things I've read coming from the mouth of an elected official in a long, long time.

and that's quite a thing to achieve. I find it utterly disgusting that once again politicians are abusing the suffering of others for their own goals. He knows that we can't ask the 9/11 victims about this, so there's no way to prove him a liar

While personally I find flag-burning silly, I oppose this amendment since buring the flag is a symbol for your disagreement with your government about some issue and as such must be allowed (as long as you burn your own flag, and not one you stole...)

 

[Aphex_Twin]

We understand that it is so. What leaves us mystified is why it is so.

Actually, we DON'T understand why it is considered sacred and at the same time "defiled" behind closed doors. Patriot Act, Guantanamo anyone?

Edit: The very fact that this kind of bill can pass in the American legislature is proof in point.

 

[Uiler]

One thing that supporters of the amendment keep on forgetting about is that if flag-burning is illegal it will change the public image of people who do it from stupid idiots to *matyrs*. TV stations that might not give a damn when some stupid uni student decides to burn a flag might give a damn when suddenly said uni student is threatened with jail for 10 years (or whatever the penalty will be) and all the big civil rights groups take up the cause as freedom of speech giving said flag-burner *massive* publicility he/she would otherwise never have. A recent poll showed more Americans are opposed to the amendment than are for it so I think they will garner a lot of sympathy, not just amongst liberals but also amongst conservatives who are of libertarian bent. This is stupid. This will get massive publicity. I can see people going on a massive flag burning spree just to protest against this amendment. What are they going to do when 300 people get together and burn a flag for national TV? Honestly, how many flag burning cases have there been in the last 20 years that have gathered any sort of national attention? I cannot think of a single one. Is flag burning really such a problem in the US? If it wasn't before, it certainly will be now. Republicans have essentially created a problem which did not previously really exist. People will burn flags NOW because (1) they hadn't thought of it before, but hey now with all this publicity and (2) it's a "big" thing now that's going to get a lot of attention from the national media and (3) just to spite the bloody law.

I can just see the headlines.

"Anti-war protestor jailed for 10 years for burning flag."
"Student jailed for 10 years for flag burning - 'Freedom of speech dead in America.'"
"9/11 families protest against jailing of student."
"Massive demonstrations against jailing of student for flag burning. "Freedom of speech is dead""
"Civil rights leaders vow to take flag burning case to Supreme Court."

To add further to these woes.
If they ban burning of all flags:
"US government jails anti-Chinese protestors for burning flag."

If they don't ban burning of all flags:

"Chinese government says 'hypocrisy' for US not to jail protestors for flag-burning"

And as things get more and more ridiculous:

"Drunk students arrested, threatend with 10 years jail for tearing down flag."
"Creators of TV satire threatened with jail for 'desecrating' flag."

 

[greekguy]

Burning the American flag should be illegal if you do so in America. If you want to protest the actions of the American government, start a rally, make a sign, or write a book. The American flag represents the American nation, and what it stands for. If you are burning a flag, then that means you truly hate this country, which means you shouldn't be living here. This is the only thing i think shouldn't be covered under freedom of expression. If you burn the American flag, you shouldn't be living in this country. Currently I oppose the War in Iraq. I don't go outside and burn a flag because I disapprove of the war. In fact, I have a flag waving outside of my house, right now as I write.

 

[geonnyboy]

How about a compromise?

I propose that the US flag should have two flaming racing stripes stitched into it. That should give all the NASCAR dads out there a boner.

Just wanted to lighten up the discussion a bit.

For the record, I voted against the amendment for pretty much the same reasons already given.

 

[IglooDame]

Burning the American flag should be illegal if you do so in America. If you want to protest the actions of the American government, start a rally, make a sign, or write a book. The American flag represents the American nation, and what it stands for. If you are burning a flag, then that means you truly hate this country, which means you shouldn't be living here. This is the only thing i think shouldn't be covered under freedom of expression. If you burn the American flag, you shouldn't be living in this country. Currently I oppose the War in Iraq. I don't go outside and burn a flag because I disapprove of the war. In fact, I have a flag waving outside of my house, right now as I write.

So what does the American nation stand for, exactly?

And who says that burning a flag means you truly hate this country? You might think so, others might not. Even so, hating where you live does not justify your deportation.

 

[nonconformist]

Oops, voted "non-American, good idea" rather than "non-American, bad idea".

I laugh that you can feasably outlaw the burning of a flag.
It's a piece of cloth.
With pretty colours.
Give me my British, or French flag, I'll burn it, piss on it, make a thong out of it, and that's just while I'm at a party.

 

[Renata]

Personally I find it funny that most of the people supporting the amendment probably would have absolutely no problems with say Chinese protestors burning the Chinese flag in protest against government oppression or the Iranian people burning the Iranian flag in protest against the theocratic government or the N. Koreans burning N. Korean flag in protest against their oppressive government. In fact if the Chinese/Iranian/N. Korean cracked down on the flag-burners they would be the first to condemn those governments for violating the rights of the protestors. The difference between America and those countries - well at least until today is that in America (and the UK and Australia) if you burn the flag they can't punish you because you have a little thing known as freedom of speech. Well, at least that *was* the difference.

Don't get too far ahead of yourself; it's not done yet. The House has passed this twice before in fairly recent years and both times it was shot down by the Senate. It's getting a relatively larger amount of press this particular time than the last (the first time the House tried it, it got tons of press, though) because the Senate is believed to be much closer to actually passing it as well. But it's far from a sure thing. And even if the Senate were to pass it, it would still have to be approved by 2/3 of the States, which I don't see happening for the same reasons as I doubt a 'no homosexual marriage' amendment would pass anytime soon: both 'liberal' and 'libertarian' states would be odds-on to say 'No.'

Renata

 

[greekguy]

So what does the American nation stand for, exactly?

And who says that burning a flag means you truly hate this country? You might think so, others might not. Even so, hating where you live does not justify your deportation.

The American flag stands for the foundations of our nation. The great men who brought our country together and won our independence. People today are burning flags because they dissaprove of our current government on domestic and foreign issues. But the flag's meaning shoudn't change from generation to generation. It still represents freedom and democracy 200 years after our independence. People who are burning the flag are burning the ideals of American democracy. If they hate those ideals so much, they should realize that they should be living in a country with different ideals.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The American flag stands for the foundations of our nation. The great men who brought our country together and won our independence. People today are burning flags because they dissaprove of our current government on domestic and foreign issues. But the flag's meaning shoudn't change from generation to generation. It still represents freedom and democracy 200 years after our independence. People who are burning the flag are burning the ideals of American democracy. If they hate those ideals so much, they should realize that they should be living in a country with different ideals.

It's just a piece of colored cloth. The American nation is great enough in itself without needing a symbol to represent it. People burning the flag are not burning away freedoms, they are burning a piece of cloth. Wether or not they believe they are trashing "democracy and freedom" in this manner is irrelevant. As I've stated before, the fact that this is to pass the Legislature hits much more at freedom and democracy that whatever act of burning a silly flag would. As Uiler noted, the whole thing could backfire and you could have people burning the flag in public just because it would be forbidden.

 

[nonconformist]

It's just a piece of colored cloth. The American nation is great enough in itself without needing a symbol to represent it. People burning the flag are not burning away freedoms, they are burning a piece of cloth. Wether or not they believe they are trashing "democracy and freedom" in this manner is irrelevant. As I've stated before, the fact that this is to pass the Legislature hits much more at freedom and democracy that whatever act of burning a silly flag would. As Uiler noted, the whole thing could backfire and you could have people burning the flag in public just because it would be forbidden.

Exactly. A piece of cloth is nothing. Stapling the Romanian flag to my ass would probably not incur AT's anger, but rather amusement.