home

Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment

By TChris, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Jun 25, 2005 at 09:15:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

Right wing efforts to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning (TalkLeft background here) aren't playing well in the press. Condemnations of the House vote to suppress symbolic criticism of the government include:

  • The Daily Telegram in Adrian, Michigan. ("To be sure, flag burning is an ignorant and vile exercise in free speech. But we allow a lot of ignorant and vile things to be said and done - that's one of the twisted beauties of our nation.")
  • The Oregonian ("That burning you smell isn't an American flag, it's the Bill of Rights going up in political smoke.")
  • The Ledger in Lakeland, Florida ("Proposing to eviscerate the First Amendment to criminalize a rare symbolic act of flag disrespect is more than just a trivialization of public policy. It is the ultimate desecration of the very constitutional foundation that really has kept this nation free for more than two centuries.")

  • The Daily Herald in Provo, Utah (helpfully pointing out that the House vote constituted 2/3 of the quorum present at the time the vote was taken, but not 2/3 of the full House)
  • The Indianapolis Star ("Old Glory will do just fine in the absence of this amendment. Freedom of thought and expression will be undiminished. And the Constitution will remain uncluttered.")
  • The Houston Chronicle ("In recent years, conservative Republicans have become reckless about endorsing amendments to the basic document framed by our Founding Fathers. It's an irresponsible political tactic, but so easy to use to appease special interests, especially identifiable groups like the military and the religious right.")

And the beat goes on ...

< Harding Court Martial Prosecution Put On Hold | New Trial For Harvard Student >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment | 25 comments (25 topical)
    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    I think it's going to take more than anti-flag burning and anti-gay votes for the Republicans to pull off electoral success any time soon.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    The main point is that this is a diversion from the real issues that a bipartisan consensus needs to address but never will, given the nature of the creeps leading the Republican Party. Whats' a worse form of desecration, burning the flag or using the flag for posturing in an election campaign? Let's see what the founders thought: Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel -Samuel Johnson Dissent is the highest form of patriotism - Thomas Jefferson Hmmmmmmmm...

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#3)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    A poster on another board commented that the flag-burning effort ought to be dumped because America does not get rattled by some stupid little punk with a Che t-shirt and a Zippo. I like that. I also think the First Amendment protects the right of any pus-brained maggot to burn the flag. I hope he'll have left his flag at home and try to steal mine. After McCain-Feingold, what is left of political free speech? If they can do that, why can't they ban flag-burning, or practically anything?

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#4)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    Mr. Bill - In one of your recent comments you noted that you designed a flag burning device while in Art Class. Do you also break wind loudly in public? Not comb your hair? Make loud comments about someone's religion? Denigrate someone's appearance? American democracy is based on freedom, but it assumes respect and responsibility. That is why the use of certain words have become unacceptable, and certain actions understood to be "not done." Now this may not convert bigots, and it may even be hypocritical. But it does allow us to live together with a minimum of fuss, and, to a degree, reduce government interference in our lives. So, there shouldn't be an amendment about flag burning. But there also should not be as*holes around who so disrespect the beliefs and feelings of their fellow citizens that they are willing to do something they know is deeply offensive to others.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#6)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    Mr. Bill - The real question becomes, are you sincere? Will you accept the slings and arrows without complaint, or will you whine that the others are not recognizing your right to insult them? Because, after all, rights work both ways. The public may choose to be offended while the artist claims he should be paid by those he offends. My view is that artists should be free to do as they please, just not supported by the public. And when Jesus is brought into the discussion, I must always remind folks that he wound up on the cross. Would you accept that as your end? No, Bill, I can't agree that free speech without responsibility is a good thing. Life is short, mostly brutish and if self-restraint will provide a fair amount of social lubricant, it should be excercised. Unreasonable actions always lead to unreasonable actions. The Radical Left and the Far Right are merely opposite sides of the same coin

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    I really try not to insult anyone. But this get's to intent. The "flag-burning" machine is to make that old point about the distinction between the symbol and the things it represents. I've whined about bad art review (slamming my stuff) but the critic has the perfect right to say their piece. And I have the right to respond. I'm offended by a government offical calling all liberals traitors, and telling obvious lies about about, say, Weapons of Mass Destruction. But I still have to pay for it. I'm more neutral over government grants to artists, but it is a pittance compared to the various propoganda efforts the govenment is currently putting out. I once heard Sister Wendy (the art Nun) on NPR's Fresh Air asked about 'art that some might find blasphemous or offensive'. "Well" this great lady said "You must mean Serrano." (the artist whose Piss Christ had been used to pillory the National Endowment for the Arts)(and this is my memory of her comment, so excuse)"you must read what he said about it. And in much mystical Christian writing, when we sin, we do much worse than submerging Christ in urine. And the language is more graphic." "And if you see the actual image, it is rather pretty, but I would compare it to newspaper cartoon art. Once you get what he is getting at, once you get the joke, there is very little reason to return to the image." Christian charity and real intellectual criticism in one nunlike package...

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    And ppv, who is going to assess and punish, who is going to make someone take responsibility for their speech/expression? And How? What is appropriate? I try not to take too much offense at much. Life is too short. Bill Bennett may think outrage is important, but it seems oddly truncated, and only applies to stuff liberals, artist, freethinkers do. And I don't expect to be crucifed for artwork, or political speech/expression, thank god.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    The hypocrisy from the right never fails to boggle Blaghdaddy's mind... Aren't the people supporting this law the same ones who support "Koran Flushing" as a means of interrogation? "So, it's no big deal to desecrate other peoples' symbols, but leave ours the f#ck alone?" Wow...

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    I bow down to Giblets of Fafblog
    Sweat Not On My Old Rugged Flag Well a lot of you are probably sitting around today going "oh well finally I can sleep peacefully! a solution has arrived to the nationwide flag-burning epidemic." Well you are wrong! The flag-burning amendment would only allow Congress to punish people for desecrating the actual flag - when there are dozens of other ways to humiliate Freedom by defacing other Freedomlike objects! [...] How would you like to walk down the street of some sunny future Main Street secure in the knowledge that the brutal local flag-burning rings have been brought to justice - only to find Saddam Hussein burning a pile of American flag post cards! "Oh don't mind me, I'm not burning a flag," the butcher of Baghdad will say. "I'm just burning a picture of a flag." [...]
    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    Or as Jon Stewart pointed out last week, 'uh - most of the flag burners are overseas.' Personally, I find it offensive that people wear replications of the flag: shirts, hankerchiefs, shorts, etc.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    How about Lady Justice? Will it be legal to bend over an effigy of the Grand Dame and ravage her, over and over again? Mark Blaghdaddy down for the next protest...BYODoll

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#14)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    Hey, "Ernesto",( aztlan guy) if this guy did a burning of the flag of mexico what would you do to him? and if he did it in mexico what would happen to him? ask question and look at the facts of others who want this nation dead,dead, and you dead with it. freedom isn't free, fight this evil empire save a nation that my fathers made for you to live ib as free people, you know the guys who died in wars and made it for you to live and have families and have homes and have a world without fear of police state powers over you 24/7. just go to mexico and ask the people what a poice state is. by the way its his right to burn a flag, and if you don't know one other fact burnung is ok when a flag is old any good lawyer can get this guy off.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:32 PM EST
    The flag is a symbol of nationalism, not freedom. The right to burn a symbol of nationalism is freedom.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#16)
    by Last Night in Little Rock on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:33 PM EST
    Like a "bad penny" or the ghost of Newt Gingrich coming back, the constitutional amendment to ban flag burning serves two purposes for the Right, one potentially exploitive and one insidious: First, the Ten Commandments case comes down Monday. If "bad" for the Right, it will be a part of the proposed amendment. If "good" it will provide further impetus for it. Not the first time the Supreme Court has been used by the Right... Second, and this is the insidious part, it is a diversion from any rational discourse about the War in Iraq. When the polls start slipping, the Right's massive PR machine gears up to divert attention from the real issues of the day to more manageable issues they can control and keep right on manipulating a compliant press cowed into playing along for fear of being labelled "left leaning" or having "media bias" against white noise of the Right. They can always control questioning patriotism, like Karl Rove's comment this week that Liberals wimped out as to 9/11. Again, use a lie for a convenient diversion from the Downing Street Memo. Keep them talking about anything but the issues by making your own. What we should be talking about is impeaching the entire lot of them. The problem with that is that it would leave Dennis Hastert President. Better than Dr. Bill ("Diagnosis Murder") Frist, I guess.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    If you want to offend people burn the flag. If you want the offend more people toss a book into the fire. If you want to be more offensive toss a bible into the fire as well. How about a Cross they seem to burn pretty well. No wait... how about throw a few Qu'urans on top of the others? Offensive enough? Toss a few mid-20th century jews on the fire. So what? It doesn't mean a thing now does it? I do support the first amendment right to burn the flag but I also might be more likely to give a look-a-way pass to the fellow that might be offended. Quite honestly if you have to burn something to make your political point then you could probably use some counseling or something. If symbols do not mean anything, why are people whining about Qur'rans being abused? Either way there is no need for a new amendment to prevent such piss in your punchbowl type behavior. People that do this kind of crap just need to be ignored. Or perhaps...institutionalised.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    jimcee,

    A flag is a piece of cloth, and can be reproduced. A book, any book, is paper, and can be reprinted. "A few mid 20th century jews" are human beings, each one irreplaceable. Adding human beings to a list of manufactured items is over the top, and that is offensive to me.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    Kitt writes:
    Or as Jon Stewart pointed out last week, 'uh - most of the flag burners are overseas.'
    Oh, really? Perhaps Stewart, and you, should read this. Mr Bill - I made no recommendation that anyone enforce anything on anybody. It is, simply put, a matter of good taste, and a liberal outlook that will tell a person to avoid doing things that will embarass or anger another person. And instead of thanking God for your freedom, you should thank the thousands of militsry people who have fought, and in some cases died, to keep this country free. DA - What is your point? That no one should be bothered about anything? That sounds good to me, but in the real world, it doesn't work. The issue is simply, can't we get along with each other? You don't burn my flag and I won't cut off your art funding. Blag - Glad to know you think it is American's right to burn an American flag. Very decent of you. Jimcee - Nicely put.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    cheetah - I think Jimcee was being sarcastic. But you should also remember that a lot of other people died in WWII, and who did so because they recognized the evil Hitler was to the world.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#21)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    'Hitler!?', I call "Godwin's Law" - you lose;-)

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    PPJ,

    I know he was being sarcastic. I also know people other than the Jewish were murdered in WWII, but they weren't mentioned in the comment. If they had been, I would have included them as well. That's why I used the term "human beings". I am offended only by the addition of human beings into a mix of inanimate objects, manufactured goods.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    Jim: Again - as Jon Stewart said, "most of the flag burners are overseas." The link you provided stated this: "A group of American Muslims produced a video that shows its members on a New York City street corner declaring Islam's dominance over America as they tread on a U.S. flag and then rip it apart." Burning vs descretation...It's not something I would or want to do - nor anyone I know (except for one, & that's just a maybe). Personally, I think it's a NONISSUE used primarily as a propaganda tool to incite.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    A symbol is NOT the thing it represents.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    Hey I was just being silly. After all Jews weren't persecuted in Europe prior to the Nazis were they? Break a few windows beat some people to death and confiscate thier property. Burn their Torahs and raze thier temples afterall they are only symbols and burning symbols is just a harmless pastime and yes I am being sarcastic. No to a constitutional ban but it would be really nice if people could show some class instead of being obnoixous.... but everyone has a right to be an a**h*ole, I guess.

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:35 PM EST
    jimcee, "nice if people could show some class"

    Do you call talking about adding Jews to a bonfire of books, flags, and a cross SHOWING SOME CLASS?

    Re: Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment (none / 0) (#28)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    Personally, I think it shows a lot of class to plaster the flag on every last pizza box and styrofoam to-go container in all of the U.S. of A. Judging from what I see in the garbage cans in my fair City (the lovely Cleveland, Ohio) during lunchtime, there's a stupendous amount of class -- and some profound levels of patriotism -- being shown by my local business community. Which leads me to another niggling question -- if the flagburning amendment should pass, will it finally mean an end to garbage incineration? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Editors Oppose Flag Burning Amendment | 25 comments (25 topical)