Should flag burning be banned?

[MaxP]

Should it?
Why/ why not?


Personally, I believe it should not.

 

[b&wpac4]

Should it?
Why/ why not?


Personally, I believe it should not.

No for two reasons:

1) It is protected under the freedom of expression.

2) It is the proper way to dispose of a flag. Read the flag code.

 

[LittleNipper]

Leaf burning is banned... No one considers that a form of expression, though it could be...

 

[b&wpac4]

Because flag burning and burning foliage are completely the same thing setup to accomplish exactly the same goal.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

Leaf burning is banned... No one considers that a form of expression, though it could be...

I'm pretty sure there is both an ecological and public safety issue involved in leaf burning.

To answer the OP while I disagree with those who burn flags as a form of protest I do not support suppressing their Constitutionally protected Freedom of Expression. It is preservation of that right (amongst others) that blood has been shed for not the flag that represents that right.

 

[yguy]

To answer the OP while I disagree with those who burn flags as a form of protest I do not support suppressing their Constitutionally protected Freedom of Expression.

Assuming you refer to the first amendment, from which part of it do you infer the right to burn anything as an expression of dissent?

 

[b&wpac4]

Assuming you refer to the first amendment, from which part of it do you infer the right to burn anything as an expression of dissent?

Are we going to have the "because the Supreme Court has ruled you can" argument again?

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

Assuming you refer to the first amendment, from which part of it do you infer the right to burn anything as an expression of dissent?

I make that inference because the Constitution doesn't limit the mode or medium of expression. Thus just about anything can be considered a form of expression from artwork, to written works, to speech, to burning flags.

I could just as easily ask you which part of the first amendment implies that flag burning is not a protected expression of dissent?

 

[lawtonfogle]

I make that inference because the Constitution doesn't limit the mode or medium of expression. Thus just about anything can be considered a form of expression from artwork, to written works, to speech, to burning flags.

I could just as easily ask you which part of the first amendment implies that flag burning is not a protected expression of dissent?

As long as it is your flag, not mine.

 

[yguy]

I make that inference because the Constitution doesn't limit the mode or medium of expression. Thus just about anything can be considered a form of expression from artwork, to written works, to speech, to burning flags.

How about a bunch of people having a public orgy as an expression of dissent? Does that merit the same protection? If not, why not?

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

As long as it is your flag, not mine.

Did you miss the part where I posted that "I disagree with those who burn flags". It sure wouldn't happen in my home, heck we're military all the way back to the Revolutionary War (possibly further but I have lost the trail in Alsace) I have three flags in my home, two adorned the coffins of my grandfather and my father who was a two time silver star recepient, and was injured in combat on three separate occasions. The third is the one I proudly raise every day and bring in every night because I don't have it illuminated.

My point is that all of those who served in my family, including myself, did so because we believe in the preservation of rights guaranteed in this country, not to protect some piece of cloth. One of those rights is the right of expression.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

How about a bunch of people having a public orgy as an expression of dissent? Does that merit the same protection? If not, why not?

Probably not because it violates public decency laws. Public decency laws exist primarily to protect children from being exposed to sexual images before they are capable of being exposed to them safely. (as I understand the law someone more knowledgeable of course may have a better or more accurate explanation than I) It is not illegal to burn most things as long as it is done safely.

Please tell me what damage burning a flag causes assuming it doesn't catch someone or something else on fire?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Did you miss the part where I posted that "I disagree with those who burn flags". It sure wouldn't happen in my home, heck we're military all the way back to the Revolutionary War (possibly further but I have lost the trail in Alsace) I have three flags in my home, two adorned the coffins of my grandfather and my father who was a two time silver star recepient, and was injured in combat on three separate occasions. The third is the one I proudly raise every day and bring in every night because I don't have it illuminated.

My point is that all of those who served in my family, including myself, did so because we believe in the preservation of rights guaranteed in this country, not to protect some piece of cloth. One of those rights is the right of expression.

What I was trying to say is that the right of expression by burning is (or should be, but hopefully is) limited by the condition that one must own what they are burning. In other words, someone can burn their own flag, only I should be able to burn my own (as to if I will is another matter).

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

What I was trying to say is that the right of expression by burning is (or should be, but hopefully is) limited by the condition that one must own what they are burning. In other words, someone can burn their own flag, only I should be able to burn my own (as to if I will is another matter).

I completely misunderstood you and I apologize. Additionally I agree with you completely, I would also extend that to public property. In other words while a person should be able to go to a flag store, purchase a flag and then burn it in protest, they should not be able to take one down at the Statehouse or the VA and burn it. (besides burning one at the VA may not be a wise choice anyway.)

 

[Nathan Poe]

None of the rights under the Constitution -- not even the First Amendment -- are absolute. "Fire in a crowded theater," and all that.

But before anyone puts a limit on civil rights, there had better be a compelling reason to do so -- and it's the judicial branch that decides where that line is and when it's been crossed.

So, what's the compelling reason to ban flag-burning as a form of protest?

 

[yguy]

Probably not because it violates public decency laws.

I believe those exist at the local level, so how can they trump the freedom of speech clause?

Please tell me what damage burning a flag causes assuming it doesn't catch someone or something else on fire?

Burning the American flag in protest encourages our enemies. The people who did so in the 60's were a contributing factor in our defeat in Viet Nam.

 

[Garyzenuf]

Burning the American flag in protest encourages our enemies. The people who did so in the 60's were a contributing factor in our defeat in Viet Nam.

*

 

[Nathan Poe]

I believe those exist at the local level, so how can they trump the freedom of speech clause?

14th Amendment -- States can limit federal rights with couse and due process.

Burning the American flag in protest encourages our enemies.

Which enemies?
When don't we have enemies?
What act of protest doesn'tb encourage our enemies?

The people who did so in the 60's were a contributing factor in our defeat in Viet Nam.

How many of them burned flags?

Sorry, yguy, but living in fear of people who hate us anyway is not a compelling enough reason to curtail civil rights.

 

[EvangelicalChristian]

I believe those exist at the local level, so how can they trump the freedom of speech clause?Burning the American flag in protest encourages our enemies. The people who did so in the 60's were a contributing factor in our defeat in Viet Nam.

Hey you may be right so plan a public orgy and when you are arrested appeal it to the Supreme Court they may agree with you, I don't know.

As for the "aiding the enemy" argument I disagree with your analysis. But even if true if we sacrifice our rights what is there left worth fighting for?

 

[keith99]

Could flag burning be illegal and still OK with me?

Yes in a restricted sense. E.g. it could fall afoul of laws about public safety and polution and someone could be arrested and convicted and I'd have no problem.

But note a few things about any such law. Fitst it would apply to all 'flags', all countries, boy scout banners, sports teams colors and even a piece of bedsheet. Second the punishment would be in line with the crime. In most cases that would mean a minor fine. I say most cases because it would change a bit if it were in the stands of a sporting even with old school wooden stands (I know some still exist in England at least), in htat case it might technically be arson. But the issue is endangering others, not the message.

Otherwise absolutely not. If only messages we like are protected then no speech is protected.

EDIT:

I can see one situation where I would even be OK with a greater penalty for flag burning than for other objects. That is where the flag is not the legal property of the burner. I think in that case there are grounds to consider it an object of far more value than the cloth and thread, it also gets into 'fighting words'. But in that case the same principle applies to the flag of Mexico or Russia that applies to the flag of the U.S.