US moves to make flag-burning illegal

bonkey

I noticed in a link off google news today that the US are once again addressing the issue of flag-burning and whether or not it is a crime.

In 1989, this was declared by the Supreme Court to be protected under the principles of Freedom of Speech. However, its something that the conservatives in the Senate have tried on more than one occasion to reverse through a constitutional amendment.

Personally, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court decision of '89 - that it shouldn't be illegal. When I read this article, I remember thinking back to the first time I saw the "bring it on" speech from Michael Douglas in the otherwise-utterly-forgettable "An American President", where he defends someone on this very issue.

Freedom is a double-edged sword - it means we sometimes allow people to do stuff we don't like. Sometimes its stuff we really don't like. To me, this is a logical extension of the "with us or against us" mentality, the "criticism == anti-American / unpatriotic" mindset, and its a potentially worrying first step in a very dangerous direction. I'm not suggesting that anyone is going to start serious legal suppression of the right to protest, but from my outside perspective it does appear that there is a growing body of sentiment in the US which is making - or trying to make - protesting more and more of a "dirty" concept.

It'll be interesting to see if this gets through - the linked-to article at least suggests that its pretty close. Should it get through, the media frenzy - or lack thereof - could be very entertaining indeed.

I'm also interested in finding out if its only the US flag which will be protected...if anyone has any other sources?

jc

Saruman

Oh i thought it was illegal.. like burning money and people and stuff like that

Hobbes

I am curious.. could anyone explain the point of this? So a flag gets burned? Whats the big deal? (unless that flag is wrapped around a kid or something).

Fearo

well I wouldnt like to see someone burning an Irish Flag!

Mighty_Mouse

well I wouldnt like to see someone burning an Irish Flag!

Id respect they're right to do it though. Usually its done as a protest against a country. Its the right to protest.

Fearo

well you can go ahead and give them respect, Id be ready with a big bucket of water!!!

bonkey

Bucket of water, fine.

Arrest, court-case, potential fining/imprisonment of those who did the lighting/burning?

Very few people (except possibly those doing the burning) like seeing their nation's flag burned. The issue, though, isn't whether or not you like it. Its whether or not it should be legal.

jc

BlitzKrieg

Yahoo news earlier had an interesting article on how unlikely the motion will make it through the senate...but now there is a new article saying that the democrats feel it is very likely to pass...

ahh here we go.

old article: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/flag_burning;_ylt=Annz_.NY.O2cJ7fH24Baf_iMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5) where it is stated that the needed majority to oppose the motion in the senate is opposing it.

while here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_co/politics_of_the_flag;_ylt=AraNS0aUv5N.Fkaa.FPS3Sms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

the democrats feel that the motion will be pushed through simple because the republicans will use the motion against them in future elections.



I understand the reasoning behind the bill, but there are elements of it that i dont like. Primarily the question of "Why" someone is burning a national flag. the Government and the public will both be able to ignore this and move directly to the crime and punishment.

ixoy

Indeed noone likes their flag being burnt - it feels as if that person is directly spitting in the face of what you feel your country is. It'd engender a lot of hatred (isn't that right Mr. Paisley!).

However, as much as I can understand people's anger over it, I really don't think it should be a crime. If people feel strongly about someone burning a flag, they can ostracize them from - fine. To make it illegal basically removes your right to a freedom of expression. Is it flag burning in company that's going to be banned or in all cases? Because the former could be argued on the grounds that it incites hatred/violence towards the burner but the latter is a far more serious problem because it's basically arguing that the person must respect the US and cannot criticize what it, through a flag, represents. From there, it's a few more steps to eroding people's right to vocally criticize and that, surely, is one of the things the US has always prided itself on - free speech.

Hobbes

I think people get worked up on symbols too much. Ok so someone hates "my" country. How is this different then someone having a placard or t-shirt that says "[country x] are ****" ?

Also I assume they have it written to show intent. I'd hate to save someones life by wrapping them in an american flag to put out a fire only to have to go to jail for it.

BlitzKrieg

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved by two-thirds of those present in each chamber, then ratified within seven years by at least 38 state legislatures.

the exact wording

Hobbes

Well according that wording you wouldn't be allowed wear clothes with the flag on them?

the_syco

ixoy wrote:

is one of the things the US has always prided itself on - free speech.

This stopped when Bush came into power.

toiletduck

song from the simpsons:
"there are a lot of flag burners
who have got too much freedom
we wana make it easier for policemen to beat 'em!"

i think while it may be disrespectful and unpleasant, it shouldn't be illegal. How would you define a flag anyway? what if i had a cup with the stars and stripes on it or a tea towel with the same? would i get a prison term for throwing them away or buring the towel?

Meh

the_syco wrote:

This stopped when Bush came into power.

Yes, that's why Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky ended up in jail for criticizing George Bush.

Speaking of George Bush, I think he might end up in jail himself if this amendment passes:

Hobbes

Meh wrote:

Yes, that's why Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky ended up in jail for criticizing George Bush.

In fairness now there are way to deal with people who disagree with you. You can certainly find instances of both people being blacklisted or having information posted about them which is incorrect or downright lying.

Add to that "Free speech zones".

murphaph

toiletduck wrote:

...How would you define a flag anyway? what if i had a cup with the stars and stripes on it or a tea towel with the same? would i get a prison term for throwing them away or buring the towel?

Remember this....

During a previous World Cup, there was lots of upset arguing about a McDonalds promotion that involved their bags showing the flags of the competing nations. Saudi Arabia had gotten through to the finals, and their flag features a verse of the Koran. Since the McDonalds bag is designed to be thrown away, this went down badly with the Saudi government.

Source

Flags are just used to divide and conquer the lower echelons of this world. Burning them is of no consequence to me and it certainly should not be a crime.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Well according that wording you wouldn't be allowed wear clothes with the flag on them?

Pedantically, according to that wording, Congress would have the ability to pass legislation which would make it illegal to wear clothes with the flag on them.

But yes...allowing Congress to define what constitutes desecration notionally means that its far from just flag-burning that could be legislated against.

jc

bonkey

the_syco wrote:

This stopped when Bush came into power.

Which did? The pride in Freedom of Speech, or the Freedom of Speech itself?

I cant' see that either stopped when Bush came into power, personally. The former is still mostly there, and the latter has simply changed in nature under Bush's tenure as it has under others in the past, and will no doubt again in the future.

F'r example....I recall reading about this bloke called McCarthy who had some witch-hunts going about a half-century ago which - in my book at least - leaves Mr. Bush and his crew firmly in the penny-ante league.

jc

jman0

bonkey wrote:

F'r example....I recall reading about this bloke called McCarthy who had some witch-hunts going about a half-century ago which - in my book at least - leaves Mr. Bush and his crew firmly in the penny-ante league.

jc

Yes but that McCarthy was only a Senator that had the ear of the head of the FBI. He wasn't the Commader in Chief.

Victor

I can understand banning it on incitement grounds, but well, incitement legislation should cover that, not anti-symbol desecration legislation.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seamus

I would be of the opinion that oppressing a person who is burning a flag only serves to prove their point/draw sympathy.

Memnoch

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

exactly the topic is about the removing of rights of protest in the US, not rights we may/may not have in ireland.

No one here has mentioned ireland so why do you bring it up as a red herring? This is a common and weak debating tool to throw up something else that's different/worse and somehow use that as an example of justification.

Let's argue the US system on it's own merits not compared to someone else. Sure doesn't the US have better freedom of speech rights than Saudi Arabia, god it must be O K then!!!!!!!one

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Funny. It would seem to me that losses of freedom in the more-free would be a bigger issue then loss of freedom in the less-free.

Lets say (for argument's sake) that the US is the most free country in the world. I think abrogation of freedom in such a nation is of far more concern than an abrogation of freedom in almost any other nation as it lowers the overall "best standard" that anyone has to compare themselves to.

Its a bit like arguing that a decrease in the standard of living in the nation with teh highest standard of living isn't significant because they're the highest, when in reality, its highly significant because it - again - lowers the bar that anyone else will aim at.

If people actually believed in absolutes - that a country's freedom/wealth/standard of living/whatever was not an issue of comparison, but rather one of absolutes, then sure...changes to the US wouldn't perhaps be as significant. Of course, if we believed in absolutes, we wouldn't be having this discussion about how Ireland is (allegedly) worse off.

On the actual topic I don't really think it should be banned as it is an erosion of freedom,

...but will criticise others for saying more or less exactly the same thing because they didn't complani that someone / they were worse off in the first place.

but God I'd love to get to the point where the banning of the burning of the Irish flag was the erosion of free speech we were dealing with in Ireland, not the fact that there is a multitude of restrictions on freedom in Ireland.

There's a multitude of restrictions on freedom in every country. If you're going to make broad sweeping generalisations about how one is much worse off than the other - topic-relevant or not - then the least you could do is actually give us a real example. I'm actually finding it quite difficult to come up with one.

jc

Hobbes

I wonder if you painted your house in a stars and stripes would it stop them from destroying it (there by removing you from it) due to eminent domain.

Nuttzz

The yanks see their flags being burnt all over the world, just look at any mid east protest, the israeli and us flags are always being torched, so i can undertsand why they dont want it on their doorstep.

tbh I feel a bit sick when I see an irish tricolour sit on top of a loyalists bonfire every july 11th... burning a national flag is a sign of disrepect to all people of that country and an incitment to hatred, if I was to burn the proposed traveller flag (see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=262688) would I be classed as a bigot or just expressing my opinion?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I was hoping thats the line you'd go down.

Care to comment on cases suich as the one Kevin Smith lost for making fun of lesbians in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back - a comedy that was irreverand about just about everything?

The defamation laws in the US would seem to give you freedom of speech ion this regard as long as you're willing to pay hard cash for it.

(example could you see white supremist groups being legally able to operate here)

Yes, I could. The major difference I'd see is that in Ireland, a group like the KKK would be made illegal once there was a sufficient body of criminal action that they had comitted seperate to the exercise of freedom of speech.

Actually even think about how legally restricive boards.ie is in terms of removing content such as how to break locks etc. In the US that would definitely be covered under the freedom of speech.

Do the names Jon Lech Johansen or Dmitry Sklyarov ring any bells?

jc

Meh

bonkey wrote:

Care to comment on cases suich as the one Kevin Smith lost for making fun of lesbians in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back - a comedy that was irreverand about just about everything?

Haven't heard anything about this, do you have a link? Google doesn't turn anything about a lawsuit, just about Kevin Smith donating $10,000 to a gay charity after a gay advocacy group criticized the film's use of "gay" as an insult. http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,8621,00.html

Jon Lech Johansen

You mean Jon Lech Johansen, the Norwegian citizen who was arrested in Norway by Norwegian police and prosecuted under Norwegian law in a Norwegian court? As for Sklyarov, note that 1) the charges were dropped and 2) Ireland has similar legislation to the DMCA under the EU Copyright Directive.

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

if I was to burn the proposed traveller flag (see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=262688) would I be classed as a bigot or just expressing my opinion?

Both ... thats the point, it shouldn't be illegal to have a bigoted opinion, only to act on it in a way that harms others (ie discrimination)