Anyone else happy about the vote on the flag burning amendment?

[Glengoyne]

I heard today that the senate missed approving the flag burning amendment by a single vote. I'm actually stunned by that. I figured this was as dead in the Senate as the gay marriage ban. I was also thinking that public sentiment had shifted away from favoring such an amendment. It certainly seems to me that I hear more and more folks talking about how important it is to preserve the right to voice dissent.

I was just surprised it could be that close. Am I that out of touch, or is it the members of the Senate, as in the Schiavo(sp?) debate?

[Joe]

I didn't think it would, or that it should, go anywhere. Surprised it was close.

[bselig]

I'm guessing it was brokered so that it would fail by one vote. The parties counted the votes and decided who would vote for or against based on the conditions in their state, so they could get the highest # of people voting for it without it passing. It never had a prayer.

[Crapshoot]

I heard today that the senate missed approving the flag burning amendment by a single vote. I'm actually stunned by that. I figured this was as dead in the Senate as the gay marriage ban. I was also thinking that public sentiment had shifted away from favoring such an amendment. It certainly seems to me that I hear more and more folks talking about how important it is to preserve the right to voice dissent.

I was just surprised it could be that close. Am I that out of touch, or is it the members of the Senate, as in the Schiavo(sp?) debate?

"". Remember, its a classic "rallying the base" kind of move - 65 votes was stunning though. I don't know what to say to people who support this kind of thing.

[johneh]

Hmm.... health care costs are out of control, gas is $3/gallon, we have troops fighting in two countries, social security is totally screwed up, the deficit is growing & growing, jobs are leaving the country ....

Yeah let's work on a flag burning ammendment! Best thing we've done since we passed a resolution that French Fries should be called Freedom Fries!

[QuikSand]

I'm guessing it was brokered so that it would fail by one vote. The parties counted the votes and decided who would vote for or against based on the conditions in their state, so they could get the highest # of people voting for it without it passing. It never had a prayer.

Agreed.

[Telle]

I was pretty shocked that it failed by only one vote also. And for what it's worth, here is my favorite quote on the matter.. from the movie "The American President".

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've got to want it bad, because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil who is standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the 'land of the free'? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free.'"

[ISiddiqui]

I'm guessing it was brokered so that it would fail by one vote. The parties counted the votes and decided who would vote for or against based on the conditions in their state, so they could get the highest # of people voting for it without it passing. It never had a prayer.

Yep. It's the Senate, so always 34 or 34 Senators will be at 4 years from reelection, who are the ones that can stop it from actually passing. After all, Mitch McConnell (no liberal) voted against the amendment. He was probably designated as being from a safe seat and 4 years to his next election to be a Republican vote of dissent.

Its just political pandering, just both parties are working together to pander without getting anything passed.

[ice4277]

Its just political pandering, just both parties are working together to pander without getting anything passed.

I always love it when both sides of the aisle come together on the things that really matter.

[QuikSand]

Yep. It's the Senate, so always 34 or 34 Senators will be at 4 years from reelection, who are the ones that can stop it from actually passing. After all, Mitch McConnell (no liberal) voted against the amendment. He was probably designated as being from a safe seat and 4 years to his next election to be a Republican vote of dissent.

Its just political pandering, just both parties are working together to pander without getting anything passed.

McConnell actually has a principled stance on this particular issue... and in my judgment your analysis fails to properly account for the true pandering. This is really why you want the majority in the chamber -- not so much because all the votes will go your way, but because it entitles your party to set the agenda, and to run tripe like this up the flagpole when your party is in peril.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm sure any number of people are happy about it. I'm not one of them, but I'm sure there are plenty.

If it was a brokered deal (and I'm a long way from believing that), then it may be one of the stupidest moves I've seen in a while. It seems to be generally thought that this was intended as a vote to motivate the GOP base, but it's failure frankly has the opposite effect on me. It just moves me one step closer to believing that there's really not much hope for this nation to reverse the ethical & moral losses of the past 40+ years, and if that's the case then it ultimately doesn't matter who we vote for, we're sunk either way.

edit to add: BTW, I finally saw the roll call vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00189) on this one. Chafee (RI) Bennett (UT) and McConnell (KY) are the three (R) who are in line for lambasting. I thought it was interesting that none of the articles I saw yesterday spelled out who the GOP defectors were specifically, which seemed noteworthy since this was a fairly party line vote.

edited again to correct number & names, thanks Chubby for posting & helping me spot the third.

[Subby]

They should focus on more important stuff - like putting together secret commando units to stealth-murder flag burners.

[QuikSand]

I don't think it was a true bipartisan collaboration, but rather an implicit one.

The GOP count was pretty straightforward from the start, with nearly the whole party planning to vote for it, save McConnell, Chaffee and perhaps one or two others.

So, the Democrats were pretty easily able to give a "free pass" to a fair number of their own who either deeply believed in it, or (much more likely) deeply believed their re-election chances were meaningfully affected by it, and allowed a certain number to vote for the amendment. I have no idea that had there been 67 votes on the tote, there were one or two "conditional" democrats whose responsibility it would be to flip back to a vote against to ensure its failure.

So, in that sense, I guess it is pandering on both sides - the GOP got to set the rules of the game, but the Democrats definitely played ball with them.

In my view, it sort of sets up like one of those academic exercises in ethics... perhaps we could now be asked to rank the various categories of Senators (based on this issue) from slimiest to most nearly tolerable? Who's really worse -- a republican leader who decides to launch this issue knowing it's not at all about advancing public policy but just about making opponents uncomfortable... or the democrat who decides to vote for it, given suitable cover from his party, even though he personally believes it's not good policy? *shurg*

[Bee]

the ethical & moral losses of the past 40+ years...

Anyone else notice this coincides with the lifespan of JonInMiddleGA? Coincidence? I think not...

;)

[Subby]

A "yes" vote was a vote for the amendment.

Voting "yes" were 52 Republicans and 14 Democrats.

Voting "no" were 30 Democrats, 3 Republicans and one independent.

Alabama: Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes.

Alaska: Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.

Arizona: Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.

Arkansas: Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) No.

California: Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado: Allard (R) Yes; Salazar (D) Yes.

Connecticut: Dodd (D) No; Lieberman (D) No.

Delaware: Biden (D) No; Carper (D) No.

Florida: Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia: Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii: Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) No.

Idaho: Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) Yes.

Illinois: Durbin (D) No; Obama (D) No.

Indiana: Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) Yes.

Iowa: Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) No.

Kansas: Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes.

Kentucky: Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) No.

Louisiana: Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.

Maine: Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland: Mikulski (D) No; Sarbanes (D) No.

Massachusetts: Kennedy (D) No; Kerry (D) No.

Michigan: Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota: Coleman (R) Yes; Dayton (D) Yes.

Mississippi: Cochran (R) Yes; Lott (R) Yes.

Missouri: Bond (R) Yes; Talent (R) Yes.

Montana: Baucus (D) Yes; Burns (R) Yes.

Nebraska: Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada: Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire: Gregg (R) Yes; Sununu (R) Yes.

New Jersey: Lautenberg (D) No; Menendez (D) Yes.

New Mexico: Bingaman (D) No; Domenici (R) Yes.

New York: Clinton (D) No; Schumer (D) No.

North Carolina: Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) Yes.

North Dakota: Conrad (D) No; Dorgan (D) No.

Ohio: DeWine (R) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma: Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes.

Oregon: Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) No.

Pennsylvania: Santorum (R) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island: Chafee (R) No; Reed (D) No.

South Carolina: DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) Yes.

South Dakota: Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) Yes.

Tennessee: Alexander (R) Yes; Frist (R) Yes.

Texas: Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah: Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont: Jeffords (I) No; Leahy (D) No.

Virginia: Allen (R) Yes; Warner (R) Yes.

Washington: Cantwell (D) No; Murray (D) No.

West Virginia: Byrd (D) No; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin: Feingold (D) No; Kohl (D) No.

Wyoming: Enzi (R) Yes; Thomas (R) Yes.

[Crapshoot]

Speaking of stupid attempts:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/index.html

This is well and good if you're going to legalize it (as they ought to do with marijuana), but if not, what the fuck do you hope to accomplish other than scoring a political point ?

[Dutch]

I'm proud of those senators that voted YES.

[Crapshoot]

I'm proud of those senators that voted YES.

And that alone is a good reason for the failure of passage. First Amendment - except when it offends me.

[Grammaticus]

Speaking of stupid attempts:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/pimp.tax/index.html

This is well and good if you're going to legalize it (as they ought to do with marijuana), but if not, what the fuck do you hope to accomplish other than scoring a political point ?
Not that I agree with it, but if you read the article you would know the answer to your question. Sounds like they want to accomplish making it easier to put people who are engaging in that activity in jail and making it easier to implement longer jail terms.

[Crapshoot]

Not that I agree with it, but if you read the article you would know the answer to your question. Sounds like they want to accomplish making it easier to put people who are engaging in that activity in jail and making it easier to implement longer jail terms.

Right - increasing the jail term for prostitution ? Is that really justifiable by anything other than chest-beating ? If you want to get laid and get paid for it, I don't see how it affects me.

[albionmoonlight]

Most of what I would say has been said in this thread already. So here's a little different point--

This effort provides a good reminder of just what a Constitution is. As that quote from the American President shows, there are certain things that most of us consider to be at the core of the individual liberties protected and celebrated by our nation--e.g., the right to burn the flag as political speech, the right to keep the government from forcing you to pray, etc..

The structures of our government protect these rights, however, only because they are in the Constitution. There is no abstract concept of individual liberty or universal human rights that transcends our Constitution. This distinction does not really come up much because our Constitution embodies most of what we consider to be "universal human rights." But, if tomorrow, an amendment passes that says that the government can shoot on sight anyone who is not a Methodist--then that is the law of the land. Such an amendment, of course, may lead to revolution, succession, etc.--but, that would be the official policy of the government, and no abstract sense of human rights would trump that in the courts, legislature, or executive branch.

So, you may think that protecting flag burning as political speech is an essential aspect of a free government. And I agree with you, and would oppose any amendments to change the Constitution in that regard. But, the only reason that the government protects it is because of the Constitution. Universal human rights are not so universal in that regard.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

Maybe my point is that for those who think that flag burning should be a crime--a constitutional amendment IS the proper way to go about things. We may complain that it is against free speech. But, ONCE THE CONSTITUTION IS AMENDED TO PROHIBIT FLAG BURNING, it no longer falls under the ambit of "free speech" as that term is used in the First Amendment.

[Grammaticus]

Right - increasing the jail term for prostitution ? Is that really justifiable by anything other than chest-beating ? If you want to get laid and get paid for it, I don't see how it affects me.
Hey, I was just answering your question. You made it sound like they were not trying to accomplish anything, when really you just did not agree with it. Thats okay. Also, most of the article indicated going after pimps that abuse underaged girls, etc.

Sounds to me more like a declaration that current criminal statutes are not affective. Otherwise you would not have to try and use tax law to accomplish something that amounts to criminal justice. Not really anything new in our society. Wasn't it tax law that put Capone away when the criminal justice system couldn't do it?

[King of New York]

The conservative critique of political correctness rests on the premise that it is wrong to coerce people into avoiding speech or forms of expression that some people deem offensive. No telling sports teams that they cannot have a nickname or logo that refers to American Indians, no telling towns that they cannot have the word "Squaw" as part of their name, and so on.

I tend to agree with the conservatives on that point.

But the flag burning amendment is just political correctness in reverse. Flag burning is a form of expression that offends some people, but not others.

To my thinking, if you oppose political correctness, you should also oppose the flag-burning amendment. Am I wrong in thinking that conservatives who oppose political correctness and speech codes at colleges, yet support a flag-burning amnedment, are just as inconsistent as liberals who support speech codes at colleges yet oppose the flag-burning amendment?

[clintl]

In my mind, this is a pretty simple matter. The flag is a symbol. Nothing more, nothing less. Among the things it symbolizes are the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, including free speech. Flag burning is a form of political protest, and to ban the physical desecration of the flag elevates the symbol to a level of sacredness greater than the principles it supposedly symbolizes.

[Vegas Vic]

Hmm.... health care costs are out of control, gas is $3/gallon, we have troops fighting in two countries, social security is totally screwed up, the deficit is growing & growing, jobs are leaving the country ....

Yeah let's work on a flag burning ammendment! Best thing we've done since we passed a resolution that French Fries should be called Freedom Fries!

Now that the critical issue of flag burning has been addressed, they need to bump up that legislation to ban people from playing online poker.

[QuikSand]

The conservative critique of political correctness rests on the premise that it is wrong to coerce people into avoiding speech or forms of expression that some people deem offensive. No telling sports teams that they cannot have a nickname or logo that refers to American Indians, no telling towns that they cannot have the word "Squaw" as part of their name, and so on.

I tend to agree with the conservatives on that point.

But the flag burning amendment is just political correctness in reverse. Flag burning is a form of expression that offends some people, but not others.

Interesting point, KONY... but:

speech codes at colleges

As the song goes, "One of these things is not like the others..." -- seems to me that rules applied to people as a condition of their participation or membership in some organization or activity is pretty different than rules enforced by the government on citizens generally.

[Glengoyne]

I'm proud of those senators that voted YES.

I am distinctly not.

[st.cronin]

I'm not a fan of legislating against something that really only ever happens in places like Iran or Syria, but it seems to me that, if you're an American citizen, and you desecrate that which is a symbol of all our liberties, haven't you, in effect, rejected those liberties? To set fire to the flag, and claim that act is protected by the constitution, represents a very special sort of cynicism.

[Grammaticus]

Interesting point, KONY... but:



As the song goes, "One of these things is not like the others..." -- seems to me that rules applied to people as a condition of their participation or membership in some organization or activity is pretty different than rules enforced by the government on citizens generally.
So QuickSand, you are basically okay with puplic Universities kicking students out of school because they burned a flag?

[Grammaticus]

dola,
Another way to look at it would be for the U.S. Government to say you can burn a flag, but if you do, you cannot recieve any public aid. Or you can burn a flag, but if you do, you lose your citizenship, etc. I mean hey you can do it, it's your choice.

Basically, your argument of "one of these things is not like the others" is just dancing around the issue.

[clintl]

I'm not a fan of legislating against something that really only ever happens in places like Iran or Syria, but it seems to me that, if you're an American citizen, and you desecrate that which is a symbol of all our liberties, haven't you, in effect, rejected those liberties? To set fire to the flag, and claim that act is protected by the constitution, represents a very special sort of cynicism.

I don't see it that way. In my opinion, it can just as easily be a protest against against the current government's policies, and in particular, against policies the current government is pursuing that undermines those liberties, either here or abroad. In fact, I think most of the time a flag burning incident happens in the US, that's the situation. Rarely, if ever, is a flag burning incident a protest against the freedoms granted in the Constitution.

[QuikSand]

So QuickSand, you are basically okay with puplic Universities kicking students out of school because they burned a flag?

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that having a debate about what our government rules to be acceptable expression and not is fundamental to our rights as citizens. Other conditional or limited forms of speech restrictions are perfectly sound issues to debate, but are not at all on the same level as the original topic.

Specifically, the more closely the organization resembles an actual instrument of government (as in your pointed example of a public university), the closer the two comparisons become -- and the more concern I think a true civil libertarian should raise. But it's still not on a direct par with the government directly outlawing certain statements by citizens based on their political content.

[Desnudo]

I heard today that the senate missed approving the flag burning amendment by a single vote. I'm actually stunned by that. I figured this was as dead in the Senate as the gay marriage ban. I was also thinking that public sentiment had shifted away from favoring such an amendment. It certainly seems to me that I hear more and more folks talking about how important it is to preserve the right to voice dissent.

I was just surprised it could be that close. Am I that out of touch, or is it the members of the Senate, as in the Schiavo(sp?) debate?

An unofficial MSN poll had the public as 60%-40% in favor of freedom of expression.

[wade moore]

I'm proud of those senators that voted YES.

Man Dutch...

I was just thinking to myself that anyone who supports a "YES" vote has a serious lack of understanding of the principles this nation was built on imo...

[albionmoonlight]

dola,
Another way to look at it would be for the U.S. Government to say you can burn a flag, but if you do, you cannot recieve any public aid. Or you can burn a flag, but if you do, you lose your citizenship, etc. I mean hey you can do it, it's your choice.

Basically, your argument of "one of these things is not like the others" is just dancing around the issue.

While the government has almost unfettered discretion to choose when and where to spend money, one of the things that it cannot do is condition the giving of money on one's exercise of a fundamental right.

So, the government can choose tomorrow to, say, end Medicaid or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. And nothing in the Constitution would prohibit that.

But the government cannot, say, give tax breaks to people who choose to vote Republican--or refuse to give federal aid to schools whose principals are Jewish.

So, the government cannot refuse to give public aid to someone soley because they burn a flag. (Or engage in any other protected speech for that matter).

[Grammaticus]

While the government has almost unfettered discretion to choose when and where to spend money, one of the things that it cannot do is condition the giving of money on one's exercise of a fundamental right.

So, the government can choose tomorrow to, say, end Medicaid or get rid of the mortgage interest deduction. And nothing in the Constitution would prohibit that.

But the government cannot, say, give tax breaks to people who choose to vote Republican--or refuse to give federal aid to schools whose principals are Jewish.

So, the government cannot refuse to give public aid to someone soley because they burn a flag. (Or engage in any other protected speech for that matter).
They can if they add an amendment to the constitution. But that is not really the point.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Or engage in any other protected speech for that matter.

Which does bring things back to the point that I believe you were trying to make earlier, one that really doesn't get enough play -- the issue really is about what speech should or shouldn't be protected.

That's actually a different couching than this usually gets, and one that I will admit that your earlier post caused me to realize that I don't consider in that regard as much as I think I should.

So while this isn't a case where a post caused a change in position (if anything it reinforces my original position), it is one of those infrequent examples of where any post in a political thread actually generated additional thought and understanding ... which I figured you deserved some credit for.

[bselig]

I think a flag burning amendment is the craziest fucking thing I've ever heard, but as I don't burn flags it wouldn't really affect me. So I think it would've been kind of fun if they had somehow screwed up and went one vote over and passed it. Suddenly not burning the flag is one of our core principles of governance. It would be a huge embarrassment for the Senate, especially whoever sponsored it. And I can't imagine they'd ever get enough votes to repeal, so we'd be stuck with it forever. Would love to hear the 28th amendment explained in civics classes.

[Grammaticus]

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that having a debate about what our government rules to be acceptable expression and not is fundamental to our rights as citizens. Other conditional or limited forms of speech restrictions are perfectly sound issues to debate, but are not at all on the same level as the original topic.

Specifically, the more closely the organization resembles an actual instrument of government (as in your pointed example of a public university), the closer the two comparisons become -- and the more concern I think a true civil libertarian should raise. But it's still not on a direct par with the government directly outlawing certain statements by citizens based on their political content.
Actually you classified 2 groups. One as a condition of participation and one enforced by the government on citizens generally. Now you are saying issues in those two groups may be similar, just one is more important. Well, that is fair, it just is not what you originally said when indicating disagreement with KONY's post bringing up examples of things that seem inconsistent within political ideology.

To your point on universities, sounds like you are saying it is okay for Universities to have a speech code, but not okay for the US Government to have a speech code (ban flag desecration). And this is not inconsistent because one is about participation in a group and one is a general ban by the government. But when I present an example that shows the university denying participation based on the flag desecration, you change your point by saying that is in fact a type of speech that a university should not be able to ban. You indicate this is possibly even more important when the university is public and closer to a government entity.

Why is it okay for a university to have a speech code, banning some forms of speech, but not banning flag desecration? That really sounds inconsistent.

[SackAttack]

I'm proud of those senators that voted YES.

The problem is, I can't even be proud of Barbara Boxer for voting no because, well, both of my state's senators are f'ed in the head.

Feinstein's "yes" vote is just further reason why she needs to be tossed on her ass, though.

[QuikSand]

To your point on universities, sounds like you are saying it is okay for Universities to have a speech code, but not okay for the US Government to have a speech code (ban flag desecration).

That is not at all what I was saying... I don't think you will find any indication of my own opinions on the matter included in what I have written. What I was, in fact, saying, was that there's a fundamentally different question when we're talking about a government abridging rights of its citizens, as contrasted with an organization or institution abridging rights of its members or participants. Surely, you can see the difference, despite what you have apparently inferred from my original post.

[Dutch]

Man Dutch...

I was just thinking to myself that anyone who supports a "YES" vote has a serious lack of understanding of the principles this nation was built on imo...

The singular act of flag burning, seen through my eyes, is treasonous. That's why I have no problem with those who voted YES. The flag reprresents the United States of America, not President Bush. The way I see it, when you burn that flag, you're burning your belief in the constitution of the United States, you're burning the Republican leadership, the Democratic leadership, the independent leadership, and the citizens. The act of burning the flag is not a protest, it is a symbolic gesture of treason. People who believe in the US Constitution would not burn the US Flag.

The Constitution is exactly what it says it is, nothing more, nothing less. And if there is an amendment that says the US Flag should be held above the values of freedom of speech, then that's what the Constitution will be. And I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, so long as we, the majority, believe in the value of the constitution and this nation.

That's why I support an amendment protecting our flag.

[Galaxy]

Makes me want to go to a direct democracy.

[QuikSand]

Why is it okay for a university to have a speech code, banning some forms of speech, but not banning flag desecration? That really sounds inconsistent.

I would agree that those two statements (which are not mine, of course, but rather your attempt to rephrase your own inferences from my earlier statements) are inconsistent.


As far as I'm concerned, a fully private organization ought to be entitled to any sort of rules it wants for its own members or participants, including rules that I or others might find offensive or discriminatory. And a government (or at least ours) should not be allowed any such rules, and no substantive abridgement of expression ought to be tolerated by the government. I see this as something of a continuum.

With the real-world example of a university (later expounded to be a public university) I think we have a case that it at neither extreme of the continuum. A fully private university that accepts no federal aid and so forth -- that entity probably ought to be able to impose any rules or limitations it sees fit on its students. A fully public university, especially one with a sort of open admissions policy, is probably fairly close to being a "government" or instrumentality thereof, in my view, and probably ought not have such rules in general. That's probably an oversimplification, and there are likely other factors that I'm not noting here, but I think that this conceptually withstands appropriate scrutiny.


The central question for the constitutional amendment is about the inherent powers of the government over its citizens. It's the absolute extreme, the essence of the entire notion of individual rights -- no continuum needed, this issue resides at one endpoint.

My earlier objection in this thread was simply to the assertion (made by another poster, I believe, whose point I still found generally interesting) that a university speech code was on the same order as this -- which I still quite firmly believe it is not. I believe cases such as that are far more nuanced than the simple and pure case before us -- that of government authority over citizen's political expressions.

[Franklinnoble]

I think flag burning should be allowed as long as it's legal for private citizens to kick the crap out of flag burners.

[QuikSand]

The way I see it...

A critical view of your analysis might center in this exact phrase. Once the government starts dissecting the content of people's expressions to determine what is acceptable and what is not, the preservation of individual expression has already been lost.

[tanglewood]

Murder is bad but there isn't any need to have a constitutional ammendment to prohibit it.

[Galaxy]

Murder is bad but there isn't any need to have a constitutional ammendment to prohibit it.

Kinda odd comparsion.

[tanglewood]

Kinda odd comparsion.

I agree, I in no way equate burning a flag to murder. Just trying to make some kind of comparison for people who believe flag burning is wrong, even if it is a bit hyperbolic.

[SackAttack]

The singular act of flag burning, seen through my eyes, is treasonous.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

As soon as you start defining an act of protest as "giving them Aid and Comfort," you have completely and utterly eviscerated the First Amendment, because now you've got the government in the business of deciding which speech is permissible and which is giving "Aid and Comfort."

Understand your Constitution before you start throwing around words like 'treason' as justification for amending it.

[wade moore]

A critical view of your analysis might center in this exact phrase. Once the government starts dissecting the content of people's expressions to determine what is acceptable and what is not, the preservation of individual expression has already been lost.

Quik (as usual) said it better than I could...

That is how YOU see it. Not how *I* see it, not how Joe Blow down the street sees it.

That's the beauty of freedom of speech, we get to see it how we want, and share how we feel about it with others.

IMO, to equate damaging a piece of cloth with treason is beyond fanatical.

[tanglewood]

Also, where are all te poeple burning flags? Why is this a problem all of a sudden?

I guarentee that if this ammendment was passed/will ever be passed in the future, incidents of flag burning will go up hugely.

[bselig]

Murder is not protected by the constitution. If it was, well, we would need an amendment unprotecting it.

You know, there seems to be a lot of love in this thread for the constitution. I'm a fan too. But if flags got constitutional protection, I think we know where the army of flag burners would go next: the constitution. They'd grab some copies and burn it, tear it, shit all over it. The constitution is at least as potent a symbol of the US as the flag. We'd need another amendment.

I'd speculate where they'd go next, but as I said, I'm not a flag burner. But who knows what they're capable of. So I think we'd better unprotect all political speech to preempt this imminent threat.

[Dutch]

IMO, to equate damaging a piece of cloth with treason is beyond fanatical.

I don't see it as a piece of cloth.

[Subby]

Murder is bad but there isn't any need to have a constitutional ammendment to prohibit it.There are laws that criminalize murder. There were laws that criminalized flag burning. The latter were declared unconstitutional. The only end around to that is to either a) hope for favorable rulings from the Supreme Court down the road or b) amend the Constitution.

The right to murder is probably not constitutionally protected.

[SackAttack]

I don't see it as a piece of cloth.

Doesn't matter. Burning it still doesn't constitute treason as laid forth in the Constitution. You may find the act distasteful - as I do - but it is certainly not treasonous.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think flag burning should be allowed as long as it's legal for private citizens to kick the crap out of flag burners.

Ding Ding Ding.

You posted my compromise position before I got around to it.

Keep flag burning legal just so long as I'm free to burn those who are burning it as a protected form of expression.

[SackAttack]

Ding Ding Ding.

You posted my compromise position before I got around to it.

Keep flag burning legal just so long as I'm free to burn those who are burning it as a protected form of expression.

Ah, so remove the criminal penalties for assault as long as you're attacking somebody who's exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of expression?

You're a credit to the state of Georgia, Jon, and I mean that in the most sarcastic light possible.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Ah, so remove the criminal penalties for assault as long as you're attacking somebody who's exercising their Constitutional right to freedom of expression?

Don't be so legalistic, it's really pretty simple.

Catch somebody burning the flag & I think it ought to be legal to shoot them squarely between the eyes. Twice even, just to make sure the friggin' moron is dead.

And then they ought to hand out community improvement awards to the people who bag the most of these fruitloops.

[sabotai]

Not too many fans of freedom these days. Actually, I doubt there ever really were that many people who fully believed in freedom.

[SackAttack]

Don't be so legalistic, it's really pretty simple.

Don't be such an asshat. It's really pretty simple.

[miked]

I'm glad I moved to Georgia :rolleyes:

[Subby]

Is it really that hard to keep the discussion civil?

Come on, fellas.

[Dutch]

Doesn't matter. Burning it still doesn't constitute treason as laid forth in the Constitution. You may find the act distasteful - as I do - but it is certainly not treasonous.

Exactly. But, if it were ammended to the Constitution...

[sabotai]

Is it really that hard to keep the discussion civil?

Are you new here? ;)

[flere-imsaho]

Exactly. But, if it were ammended to the Constitution...

Even if it were originally written (explicitly) into the Constitution and the Senate was considering amending the Constitution to make flag burning legal, I'd still object to this complete and utter waste of time by Congress (the House voted earlier) generally and the Republican leadership specifically (for it is they who set the agenda in both chambers).

The challenges facing this country are numerous and daunting, and they decide to waste a whole day on this?

On a related note, did anyone find it ironic that the day after the Senate rejects a bill to increase the minimum wage, they vote to continue to give themselves raises?

[SackAttack]

Exactly. But, if it were ammended to the Constitution...

*twitch*

[sabotai]

The challenges facing this country are numerous and daunting, and they decide to waste a whole day on this?

Your tax dollars at work!

[flere-imsaho]

Oh, even better. Now Republican Congressional leaders are planning to put forward a bill condemning the New York Times for leaking information (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/062806/nytimes.html). Boggle at the hypocrisy! Stupefy at the waste of time (and money)! :)

[Deattribution]

Lots of soldiers goto war, lots have died, lots more will die - they are fighting for their country, their country is represented not by individual faces, but the american flag...

I've never seen anyone burn a flag and thought - gee they really hate the goverment or the president... or boy I'm glad we have that freedom...

It's just disrespect to those who have given their lives for the same assholes over here burning flags that represent what those people who died fought for, and even the ones who made it back. Not just this war, all of them.

It's a symbol, if you don't respect it, you shouldn't be protected by it. Nothing to do with freedom, cause it'd be really awful if this country put it's political bullshit aside and actually had some respect for itsself.

[Dutch]

Look, an Amendment to the Constitution for flag burning will never happen. Is it a waste of time? I don't think so. I see discussion about things like this healthy and I'm glad that Congress is doing so. Consider it US Flag Awareness Day for the boys and girls representing us all.

And we don't need an Amendment. We just need for high-powered fire extinguishers.

[Deattribution]

dola

Though I will say and agree that passing the amendment would cause the number of flags burnt to spike up significantly just because people are stupid and would use it to further their cause to get attention.

[wade moore]

I don't see it as a piece of cloth.

I'm pretty rah-rah Americana, and even I have a hard time extending this too far... While I was oversimplifying a bit and do see significance to the flag, I just can't stretch to give it special properties under the constitution...

Do I prevent flags from touching the ground? Yes. Will I display a flag at night without a light on it? No. Do I respect the flag in everyway I know that you are supposed to, yes.

Do I hold contempt for people who burn the flag? Yes. Do I think it's wrong, yes.

Do I think you should be constitutionally forbidden from burning it? Heck no.

[sabotai]

In celebration of this day, and to piss off some people on this board, I just burned 3 flags.

Although, I now know that flags are a poor substitute for coal or propane for a grill....I wanted flag-grilled burgers and it didn't work. :(

[Grammaticus]

In celebration of this day, and to piss off some people on this board, I just burned 3 flags.

Although, I now know that flags are a poor substitute for coal or propane for a grill....I wanted flag-grilled burgers and it didn't work. :(
Were they Iranian flags?

[sabotai]

Were they Iranian flags?

One was the flag of Kenya. The 2nd was the flag of the Cook Islands and the third was the flag of Nepal. They all cost the same. I think I got ripped off on the Nepal flag, IMO.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Don't be such an asshat. It's really pretty simple.

I didn't go looking for you dickhead, you went after me when I commented to FN. But if you want to play, well, when a clueless twit like you think I'm being an asshat, it's usually a great indication that I'm on the right track. Like I've told you before, you really ought to stick to stuff that's within your ability to comprehend & stop trying to play up. In other words, go fuck your arrogant self SA and I really mean that from the bottom of my heart. I've rarely run across anyone who thinks more highly of themselves without good reason than you.

And my compromise position isn't all that unusual, I have the same basic outline for bicyclists who ride on public highways but fail to obey applicable laws. Issue hunting permits, have limits for harvesting them (gender, age, etc), problem solved. The same process could be applied, minus the bag limit, and you've got an instant money maker.

[Grammaticus]

I don't know, that Nepal sure has inspired a lot of Italian restaurants. You don't want to under estimate them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

that Nepal sure has inspired a lot of Italian restaurants.

And that three-flavored ice cream thing was pure genius.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Is it a waste of time? I don't think so. I see discussion about things like this healthy and I'm glad that Congress is doing so.

That's just it. It is a waste of time. One, big gigantic waste of time. It's nothing more than a political circle jerk. It's like the gay marriage ammendment debate or that whole business about that non-binding resolution on the war in Iraq. It's all a complete and utter waste of time and money. They only reason these things are being raised and "debated" is an attempt to rally the conservative party in time for the mid-term elections. That's it.

The problem is, however, that even if Congress weren't wasting time on these "issues" they'd just be wasting time on something equally stupid like steriods in baseball or something.

I really don't think there is anything all that profound to say on this subject (the above paragraphs most definitely included).

[sabotai]

I don't know, that Nepal sure has inspired a lot of Italian restaurants.

Really? In that case, he's aces in my book!

[SackAttack]

I didn't go looking for you dickhead, you went after me when I commented to FN.

I know, because I'm just naive enough to think that you can't possibly be as breathtakingly stupid as you frequently appear to be.

But if you want to play, well, when a clueless twit like you think I'm being an asshat, it's usually a great indication that I'm on the right track.

Let's compare these two quotes.

Like I've told you before, you really ought to stick to stuff that's within your ability to comprehend & stop trying to play up. In other words, go fuck your arrogant self SA and I really mean that from the bottom of my heart.

Who's the arrogant one? "When a clueless twit like you thinks I'm an asshat, it means I'm right." Oh, and the f-bomb. Nice touch, Jon. I give it a 7 for effort.

I've rarely run across anyone who thinks more highly of themselves without good reason than you.

You haven't looked in a mirror lately, have you?

And my compromise position isn't all that unusual, I have the same basic outline for bicyclists who ride on public highways but fail to obey applicable laws. Issue hunting permits, have limits for harvesting them (gender, age, etc), problem solved. The same process could be applied, minus the bag limit, and you've got an instant money maker.

And I'M the arrogant, clueless twit who should go fuck himself? Come on, Jon. You're smarter than that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Also, where are all te poeple burning flags? Why is this a problem all of a sudden?

I guarentee that if this ammendment was passed/will ever be passed in the future, incidents of flag burning will go up hugely.

I think I've only seen one person burn the American flag. It was on New Years Eve at a Rage Against the Machine Concert at the Detroit Fairgrounds. When the clock struck midnight, the leader singer of Rage (forget his name, but the original one) lit fire to a flag and started reading some poem.

That's it.

I really didn't think much of the flag burning thing. It was one of the best concerts I've ever been to though. Good times there.

[sabotai]

I think I've only seen one person burn the American flag. It was on New Years Eve at a Rage Against the Machine Concert at the Detroit Fairgrounds.

Born with insight and a raised fist
A witness to the slit wrist
As we move into '92
Still in a room without a view
Ya gotta know
Ya gotta know
That when I say go, go, go
Amp up and amplify
Defy
I'm a brother with a furious mind
Action must be taken
We don't need the key
We'll break in

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
'Cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against 'em

Fist in ya face, in the place
And I'll drop the style clearly
Know your enenmy

Word is born
Fight the war, fuck the norm
Now I got no patience
So sick of complacence
With the D E F I A N C E
The mind of a revolutionary
So clear the lane
The finger to the land of chains
What? The land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
'Cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against 'em

Now action must be taken
We don't need the key
We'll break in

I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
I've got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
Sick of sick of sick of sick of sick of you
Time has come to pay

Yes I know my enemies
They are the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimulation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams

[Grammaticus]

I saw Ted Nugent light an arrow on fire and then shoot the arrow into a target on the other side of the stage. Then he yelled real loud and ran around the stage. It was not the best concert I have ever been too, but it was decent. Good times were had there.

[bronconick]

I wish the damn thing would have passed so it could die a slow, agonizingly painful death in the states like the Equal Rights Amendment and then we'd never hear of it again.

[cartman]

I'd be offended if someone called my mother a "dirty, filthy, c*cksucking whore". But I wouldn't want a constitutional amendment to ban someone being able to say it.

Besides, aren't there already laws on the books that cover the proper treatment of and respect for the flag? Why not use those and challenge the constitutionality of those laws before jumping straight to amending the Constitution, for those so in favor of such an amendment?

[Subby]

I'd be offended if someone called my mother a "dirty, filthy, c*cksucking whore". But I wouldn't want a constitutional amendment to ban someone being able to say it.

Besides, aren't there already laws on the books that cover the proper treatment of and respect for the flag? Why not use those and challenge the constitutionality of those laws before jumping straight to amending the Constitution, for those so in favor of such an amendment?
Sometimes I have a mancrush on you. A big burly one.

[Toddzilla]

Wait, what was the topic? Oh yeah...

I was happy that the vote failed - I believe flag burning is proected free-speach, although I don't hold anything against the guys who voted yes for whatever reason.

I'm also not so holier-than-thou to think that someone should be shot for expressing an opinion contrary to my own. That's what this is all about, protecting speech, right? I guess that includes protecting hypocricy too, so there you have it. Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't - we don't get to pick and choose.

[Toddzilla]

Dola - RATM fucking <strike>rules</strike> ruled.

[Grammaticus]

I'd be offended if someone called my mother a "dirty, filthy, c*cksucking whore". But I wouldn't want a constitutional amendment to ban someone being able to say it.

Besides, aren't there already laws on the books that cover the proper treatment of and respect for the flag? Why not use those and challenge the constitutionality of those laws before jumping straight to amending the Constitution, for those so in favor of such an amendment?
That has already been done. I think it was ruled unconstitutional two times (maybe more), hence the ammendment debate.

[Glengoyne]

I'm not a fan of legislating against something that really only ever happens in places like Iran or Syria, but it seems to me that, if you're an American citizen, and you desecrate that which is a symbol of all our liberties, haven't you, in effect, rejected those liberties? To set fire to the flag, and claim that act is protected by the constitution, represents a very special sort of cynicism.

Again, I haven't read through all of the responses to this point, so I don't know if this has been addressed.

My take on it is that the constitution guarantees us freedom of speech with very limited exceptions. That provision is there to prevent the government from cracking down on citizen dissent. They wanted citizens to be able to voice their dissent. They didn't want the government throwing people in jail for lampooning Government officials in the newspapers or for burning them in effigy in the streets. The right to express dissent against the government is pretty much explicitly covered in the Constitution, well the Bill of Rights.

If someone wants to burn the flag. I'm offended by their actions, but that doesn't mean I don't want them to be able to do it. I guess I pass the KONY's PC test.

I sort of liked Mississippi's(I think) laws regarding this. They declared that burning a flag was equivalent to speaking "fighting words". Those are words that are so inflamatory when spoken that they are just like striking another person. So you can burn the flag there all you want, but don't come crying to the police if some big ol' redneck comes calling.

[Grammaticus]

One interesting note on the waste of time comments. The legislatures of all 50 states have apparently sent non-binding resolutions to the US Congress asking them to propose the flag desecration amendment to them for resolution. So, although it can be viewed as a waste of time, it really does not make that much sense to criticize US congress people when they are doing what all of the states have asked. If you don't like it, a good approach may be to write your state congress people and tell them not to send flag desecration resolutions to the US congress, as you consider it a waste of time.

Personally, I don't see how someone would want to burn the US flag, an expression of hate against this country and actually want to live here. They must be confused or mentally ill.

The real problem I see with this sort of thing, is selective "free speech" protection. If a man desecrates a Palestinian flag at a political demonstration, he is likely to be prosecuted for a hate crime. But if he desecrates a US flag at a political rally, he is just expressing himself. WTF?? You either support free speech or you don't, period.

[cartman]

Sometimes I have a mancrush on you. A big burly one.

This is something I'd support a constitutional amendment to ban.

:D

[Passacaglia]

Not too many fans of freedom these days. Actually, I doubt there ever really were that many people who fully believed in freedom.

Word. The Red Eye had a quote from Frist, saying something about all the soldiers whou fought to defend that flag, and we're just trying to do what we can to defend it, also. I'm sorry, I didn't realize the wars we fought were to defend a FUCKING PIECE OF CLOTH -- I thought the terrorists hated our freedom.

[albionmoonlight]

The real problem I see with this sort of thing, is selective "free speech" protection. If a man desecrates a Palestinian flag at a political demonstration, he is likely to be prosecuted for a hate crime.

I really, really doubt that. Why would the First Amendment protections for political speech differ based on whose flag you are burning? As a legal matter, I see no difference. Both activities are protected by the First Amendment. Unless you are seeing something that I am missing.

[cartman]

That has already been done. I think it was ruled unconstitutional two times (maybe more), hence the ammendment debate.

Wow, I didn't realize that many people on different occasions had called my mom that. :D

Those cases must have happened a while back, because you don't hear as an argument for the amdendment about having to deal with out of control "activist judges".

[ISiddiqui]

One interesting note on the waste of time comments. The legislatures of all 50 states have apparently sent non-binding resolutions to the US Congress asking them to propose the flag desecration amendment to them for resolution. So, although it can be viewed as a waste of time, it really does not make that much sense to criticize US congress people when they are doing what all of the states have asked. If you don't like it, a good approach may be to write your state congress people and tell them not to send flag desecration resolutions to the US congress, as you consider it a waste of time.

Which demonstrates ANOTHER waste of time, this time by the states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

So, instead of non-binding votes, the states should get off their ass, have binding votes mandating Congress to convene a convention to add a flag burning amendment to the document. As the document says, when 2/3rs of the state legislatures call for a Amendment Convention, Congress shall call for that convention. They may not agree with the states, but there is nothing saying the states have to sit around and fart around waiting for Congress.

So yes, the non-binding votes of the states are a waste of time as well.

The real problem I see with this sort of thing, is selective "free speech" protection. If a man desecrates a Palestinian flag at a political demonstration, he is likely to be prosecuted for a hate crime. But if he desecrates a US flag at a political rally, he is just expressing himself. WTF?? You either support free speech or you don't, period.

WTF? :confused:

Can you show me one example of a man burning a flag at a demonstration being prosecuted for a hate crime, or did you pull that one out of your ass?

[cartman]

So, instead of non-binding votes, the states should get off their ass, have binding votes mandating Congress to convene a convention to add a flag burning amendment to the document. As the document says, when 2/3rs of the state legislatures call for a Amendment Convention, Congress shall call for that convention. They may not agree with the states, but there is nothing saying the states have to sit around and fart around waiting for Congress.

But there's a pretty good reason that a Constitutional Convention has never been convened. The Convention itself is open-ended. It wouldn't address, or be bound to consider, just a single issue. It would potentially open up a huge pandora's box, especially in these more partisan than usual times.

[QuikSand]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is grandstanding, not policymaking. Nobody's involved in this issue to actually get anything accomplished -- they're rewarning this old tired crap just so they can jump up and down and yell for a while.

[Toddzilla]

There was a nice article in the (left-leaning) WaPo today about the failure of the amendment. Basically, it talked about the apathy the Senate had over the amendment and how many senators just didn't have the motivation to give this topic a full debate. Many just wanted to vote and move on with other business. Only one senator was willing to admit that flag burning was the most pressing issue facing the country. I'd link the article, but wp.com requires registration.

[RendeR]

Personally, I don't see how someone would want to burn the US flag, an expression of hate against this country and actually want to live here. They must be confused or mentally ill.


Of course , if they disagree with you they MUST be mentally ill. Ever think that they want to live in the best nation ever created and enjoy the freedoms it makes available, and this little protest is their way of letting the government know they disagree with how they're doing things? Naw, couldn't actually have a valid reason, must just be fucked in the head...:rolleyes:


The real problem I see with this sort of thing, is selective "free speech" protection. If a man desecrates a Palestinian flag at a political demonstration, he is likely to be prosecuted for a hate crime. But if he desecrates a US flag at a political rally, he is just expressing himself. WTF?? You either support free speech or you don't, period.

If you desicrate a foreign flag in front of members of that nation, INSIDE this country, it could certainly be prosecuted as a hate crime. You have the freedom to burn it, the law also has teh freedom to jail you for breaking hate crime laws. If you burn a foreign flag in your back yard or just as a whim where no persons of that country are around to feel threatened by you and your purotechnics, then yer probably not gonna be arrested. its all about context.

You have the right to burn whatever flag you wish, including the stars and stripes. The consequences of that action will be different in almost every case based on teh context in which it is done.

The REAL problem is that some people get so wrapped up in a symbol that they forget UTTERLY what that symbol is supposed to represent. If you want to kill people for destroying a symbol you love and respect, go start your own little religion.

This country and everything it represents CANNOT be defined by any one icon. It must be defined by its actions and its beliefs. One of those we hold dear is the freedom of expression, the freedom from fear of persecution for saying what we think and feel.

Ban flag burning and you might as well shredd that part of the constitution and everything relating to it.

I served in Desert shield/Storm back in 1991. I love the fact that I supported this nation and its people. If we start trying to legislate away things that people find "distasteful" or "disrespectful" we'll all be locked in our homes and never allowed to leave.

There are giudelines for showing respect for our flag, they are not laws, they are not requirements, they are giudelines. Make them laws and we're no longer the land of the free OR the home of the brave, we'd simply be petty self important losers wrapped up in pretty red white and blue cloth.

[RendeR]

Only one senator was willing to admit that flag burning was the most pressing issue facing the country.


There's a Senator who is completely out of touch with reality. So glad someone elected this fuckup.

[Passacaglia]

Those 34 Senators who voted "NOT" must be gay.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread..

[Honolulu_Blue]

Those 34 Senators who voted "NOT" must be gay.

Oh, sorry, wrong thread..

Heh!!!!

Classic!

[Daimyo]

The real problem I see with this sort of thing, is selective "free speech" protection. If a man desecrates a Palestinian flag at a political demonstration, he is likely to be prosecuted for a hate crime.
Uh... I don't think you can commit a hate crime without actually having committed a crime...

[flere-imsaho]

One interesting note on the waste of time comments. The legislatures of all 50 states have apparently sent non-binding resolutions to the US Congress asking them to propose the flag desecration amendment to them for resolution. So, although it can be viewed as a waste of time, it really does not make that much sense to criticize US congress people when they are doing what all of the states have asked. If you don't like it, a good approach may be to write your state congress people and tell them not to send flag desecration resolutions to the US congress, as you consider it a waste of time.

So we should excuse the U.S. Congress from wasting time because State legislatures also waste time? Uh, ok.

Personally, I don't see how someone would want to burn the US flag, an expression of hate against this country and actually want to live here. They must be confused or mentally ill.

No, it's the people who want to trample the First Amendment who are truly nuts.

The real problem I see with this sort of thing, is selective "free speech" protection. If a man desecrates a Palestinian flag at a political demonstration, he is likely to be prosecuted for a hate crime. But if he desecrates a US flag at a political rally, he is just expressing himself. WTF?? You either support free speech or you don't, period.

O RLY? Got any evidence of that?

[John Galt]

Uh... I don't think you can commit a hate crime without actually having committed a crime...

This is true.

[sachmo71]

O RLY? Got any evidence of that?


can you please post that owl image? i like that one.

[Subby]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/BPMdotEXE/Random/O_RLY.jpg

[Honolulu_Blue]

can you please post that owl image? i like that one.

http://gamersmafia.com/cache/thumbnails/193x193/storage/users/0/o_rly_owl.jpg

A bit slow, but you can never have too much of the owl...

[sachmo71]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/BPMdotEXE/Random/O_RLY.jpg



*CLAP CLAP CLAP*

and thanks as well, HB. :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/GilGrissomCSI/No_not_rly_owl.jpg

[albionmoonlight]

Uh... I don't think you can commit a hate crime without actually having committed a crime...

Yup. And, FWIW, I think that hate crimes should be abolished anyway. The government should not be punishing me more because of certain improper thoughts that I have had.

State of mind, of course, matters. Say I stick a knife into a guy and kill him. I may do it (1) with the premeditated and deliberated intent to kill him; or (2) in a blind rage; or (3) because I thought that it was a prop knife and would not harm him at all. Any law student will tell you that the law treats those three situations differently, and that one's punishment will vary depending on which of those three states of mind you had.

Hate crimes, however, get to a different sort of state of mind--a state of mind that I don't think the government has the business or the right to punish with its police powers. Say I stick a knife into a guy and kill him. I may do it because (1) he took my parking spot or (2) because he is (was?) black and I hate black people. To me, those should be prosecuted the same. If you punish me more in case #2, you are, in effect, punishing my hatred of black people. I think that I have the right to hate black people. It may not be the best state of mind to have--but I think that the right to hold opinions of that nature is a right that the government should not trample. Of course, when hatred crosses the line into violence, the violent crime needs to be punished. But, IMHO, no more than other types of violent crime motivated by greed, jealousy, etc.

[sabotai]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this is grandstanding, not policymaking. Nobody's involved in this issue to actually get anything accomplished -- they're rewarning this old tired crap just so they can jump up and down and yell for a while.

Yup, business as usual.

[Passacaglia]

Yup. And, FWIW, I think that hate crimes should be abolished anyway. The government should not be punishing me more because of certain improper thoughts that I have had.

State of mind, of course, matters. Say I stick a knife into a guy and kill him. I may do it (1) with the premeditated and deliberated intent to kill him; or (2) in a blind rage; or (3) because I thought that it was a prop knife and would not harm him at all. Any law student will tell you that the law treats those three situations differently, and that one's punishment will vary depending on which of those three states of mind you had.

Hate crimes, however, get to a different sort of state of mind--a state of mind that I don't think the government has the business or the right to punish with its police powers. Say I stick a knife into a guy and kill him. I may do it because (1) he took my parking spot or (2) because he is (was?) black and I hate black people. To me, those should be prosecuted the same. If you punish me more in case #2, you are, in effect, punishing my hatred of black people. I think that I have the right to hate black people. It may not be the best state of mind to have--but I think that the right to hold opinions of that nature is a right that the government should not trample. Of course, when hatred crosses the line into violence, the violent crime needs to be punished. But, IMHO, no more than other types of violent crime motivated by greed, jealousy, etc.

Wordy McWord.

[albionmoonlight]

Wordy McWord.

Lawyers do get paid by the hour, you know :)

[Passacaglia]

Lawyers do get paid by the hour, you know :)

All I meant was "I agree" -- didn't really mean to comment on the length! :)

[Huckleberry]

I agree with Wordy regarding hate crimes.

[SackAttack]

Lawyers do get paid by the hour, you know :)

Even if they don't work the full hour? :)

[Huckleberry]

...didn't really mean to comment on the length! :)

Sorry. Didn't realize this was a personal and private conversation.

[Grammaticus]

Of course , if they disagree with you they MUST be mentally ill. Ever think that they want to live in the best nation ever created and enjoy the freedoms it makes available, and this little protest is their way of letting the government know they disagree with how they're doing things? Naw, couldn't actually have a valid reason, must just be fucked in the head...:rolleyes:

Not at all, they can disagree and be completely sane. In a literal translation, I don’t see the value in expressing hatred for your nation, then choosing to live someplace that you hate. The flag does not represent individual administrations. If someone does not like the administration, they can burn a picture of those people, etc. Burning the flag accomplishes nothing but the goal to antagonize someone else. So be it.

I also served in the United States Military while both George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton were at the helm. Not once did I feel my country’s values were represented by the individual who was president, neither did I feel the flag represented that person and their administration. The Nation transcends these individuals and I agree it stands for freedom. So when you burn the symbol of the nation, you are saying you don’t like it. It is not the same thing as not liking social security or taxes or whatever.

At the end of the day go ahead and burn the flag, I wouldn’t personally legislate against it or prosecute someone for doing it. In fact, it is probably better to know who feels like that anyway.

If you desicrate a foreign flag in front of members of that nation, INSIDE this country, it could certainly be prosecuted as a hate crime. You have the freedom to burn it, the law also has teh freedom to jail you for breaking hate crime laws.
Then
If we start trying to legislate away things that people find "distasteful" or "disrespectful" we'll all be locked in our homes and never allowed to leave. and
One of those we hold dear is the freedom of expression, the freedom from fear of persecution for saying what we think and feel.


You don’t see a problem there? How can you agree that burning one countries flag can be a hate crime (or just a crime in general), but burning anothers is not? More like neither should be considered a problem. On one hand you think it is okay to legislate against an expression, then on the other you think it is not. That just does not make sense.

Make them laws and we're no longer the land of the free OR the home of the brave, we'd simply be petty self important losers wrapped up in pretty red white and blue cloth.
So, if someone disagrees with you they couldn’t have a valid reason, they are simply petty self important losers. I guess that is better than being mentally ill. You got me there.

BTW, I never said anything about killing people for disrespecting a symbol. So I don't know where that comment came from. That sounds like it would come from an LA gang.

[clintl]

Yup. And, FWIW, I think that hate crimes should be abolished anyway. The government should not be punishing me more because of certain improper thoughts that I have had.

State of mind, of course, matters. Say I stick a knife into a guy and kill him. I may do it (1) with the premeditated and deliberated intent to kill him; or (2) in a blind rage; or (3) because I thought that it was a prop knife and would not harm him at all. Any law student will tell you that the law treats those three situations differently, and that one's punishment will vary depending on which of those three states of mind you had.

Hate crimes, however, get to a different sort of state of mind--a state of mind that I don't think the government has the business or the right to punish with its police powers. Say I stick a knife into a guy and kill him. I may do it because (1) he took my parking spot or (2) because he is (was?) black and I hate black people. To me, those should be prosecuted the same. If you punish me more in case #2, you are, in effect, punishing my hatred of black people. I think that I have the right to hate black people. It may not be the best state of mind to have--but I think that the right to hold opinions of that nature is a right that the government should not trample. Of course, when hatred crosses the line into violence, the violent crime needs to be punished. But, IMHO, no more than other types of violent crime motivated by greed, jealousy, etc.

I disagree. Hate crimes present a special menace to civil society, and deserve special treatment. You want to hate blacks - fine, nobody can stop you. But if you act on it, you are an inherently more dangerous person than the ordinary criminal, and deserve a harsher penalty.

[Huckleberry]

I disagree. Hate crimes present a special menace to civil society, and deserve special treatment. You want to hate blacks - fine, nobody can stop you. But if you act on it, you are an inherently more dangerous person than the ordinary criminal, and deserve a harsher penalty.

Someone that kills someone specifically because of their race or religion or something similar is more dangerous than someone that kills someone randomly or because they didn't like the look the victim gave them? Does not compute. Dead is dead. Murder is murder.

Someone that kills for money is more dangerous to society than someone that kills because of romantic jealousy by your line of thinking. Do you have a sliding scale of motives complete with appropriate punishment bonuses?

[Subby]

So when you burn the symbol of the nation, you are saying you don’t like it.
That seems like a fairly narrow interpretation of a symbolic act. I think there are plenty of other reasons why folks would burn a flag.

[clintl]

Someone that kills someone specifically because of their race or religion or something similar is more dangerous than someone that kills someone randomly or because they didn't like the look the victim gave them? Does not compute. Dead is dead. Murder is murder.

Someone that kills for money is more dangerous to society than someone that kills because of romantic jealousy by your line of thinking. Do you have a sliding scale of motives complete with appropriate punishment bonuses?

Motive is always a consideration when determining the appropriate punishment for a crime, in both theory and practice.

[Daimyo]

Hate crimes, however, get to a different sort of state of mind--a state of mind that I don't think the government has the business or the right to punish with its police powers. Say I stick a knife into a guy and kill him. I may do it because (1) he took my parking spot or (2) because he is (was?) black and I hate black people. To me, those should be prosecuted the same. If you punish me more in case #2, you are, in effect, punishing my hatred of black people. I think that I have the right to hate black people. It may not be the best state of mind to have--but I think that the right to hold opinions of that nature is a right that the government should not trample. Of course, when hatred crosses the line into violence, the violent crime needs to be punished. But, IMHO, no more than other types of violent crime motivated by greed, jealousy, etc.
While its not something I feel strongly about, I tend to disagree. I think that an important consideration when determining the punishment for a crime should be "given the opportunity how likely is the person to commit the crime again." Someone who hates a race or sexuality or whatever so much that they commit a crime is in my mind more likely to repeat the offense and needs to treated accordingly.

[John Galt]

Motive is always a consideration when determining the appropriate punishment for a crime, in both theory and practice.

I normally don't want to contribute too much to a threadjack (since burning a foreign, flag is NOT a hate crime!), but I do agree with this. Lots of motives affect punishment either positively or negatively: if a crime is in the heat of passion, if is done with sadism in mind, if it was motivated by necessity (ie stealing a car to drive a pregnant wife to the hospital), etc. "Hate" is just another motive to throw into the mix when determining punishment (it is not used to determine guilt).

And while murder is murder and dead is dead, I don't believe "hate" makes a crime entitled to the death penalty (although I could be wrong). I think the sentencing enhancement almost entirely focuses on assaults. And the range of punishments for beating someone up is large. So, if society has deemed particular type of assaults as being problematic (ie we punish assaults by organized criminals to a high degree), then I think that is ok. Not all assaults are the same and our criminal justice system has long recognized that.

[SackAttack]

BTW, I never said anything about killing people for disrespecting a symbol. So I don't know where that comment came from. That sounds like it would come from an LA gang.

Or from Jon:

Catch somebody burning the flag & I think it ought to be legal to shoot them squarely between the eyes. Twice even, just to make sure the friggin' moron is dead.

Which is probably what RendeR was referring to, and you just sort of wound up as collateral damage in his post.

[Huckleberry]

I have no problem with using the argument that this was a hate crime in sentencing to convince a jury to sentence at the high end of the allowable range. I do have a problem with setting separate ranges based on what a person was thinking. That is "hardcoded" punishment based on thought.

[JeffNights]

I have just one argument on the issue...Yes, the burning of the flag is portected under the "Freedom of expression"..But do you think when the Constitution was wrote they had this in mind?

Try burning the flag back in the late say 18th century.....

[ISiddiqui]

I have no problem with using the argument that this was a hate crime in sentencing to convince a jury to sentence at the high end of the allowable range. I do have a problem with setting separate ranges based on what a person was thinking. That is "hardcoded" punishment based on thought.

Ditto... I wouldn't call it a 'hate crime' because I wouldn't make it a crime, but I would include it in sentancing to show that the criminal was going to committ crimes in the future. That's fair. We do look at motive when determining sentancing, in the how likely will they do this again.

[RendeR]

Not at all, they can disagree and be completely sane. In a literal translation, I don’t see the value in expressing hatred for your nation, then choosing to live someplace that you hate. The flag does not represent individual administrations. If someone does not like the administration, they can burn a picture of those people, etc. Burning the flag accomplishes nothing but the goal to antagonize someone else. So be it.

I also served in the United States Military while both George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton were at the helm. Not once did I feel my country’s values were represented by the individual who was president, neither did I feel the flag represented that person and their administration. The Nation transcends these individuals and I agree it stands for freedom. So when you burn the symbol of the nation, you are saying you don’t like it. It is not the same thing as not liking social security or taxes or whatever.

At the end of the day go ahead and burn the flag, I wouldn’t personally legislate against it or prosecute someone for doing it. In fact, it is probably better to know who feels like that anyway.


Then
and



You don’t see a problem there? How can you agree that burning one countries flag can be a hate crime (or just a crime in general), but burning anothers is not? More like neither should be considered a problem. On one hand you think it is okay to legislate against an expression, then on the other you think it is not. That just does not make sense.


So, if someone disagrees with you they couldn’t have a valid reason, they are simply petty self important losers. I guess that is better than being mentally ill. You got me there.

BTW, I never said anything about killing people for disrespecting a symbol. So I don't know where that comment came from. That sounds like it would come from an LA gang.


#1 OI, you don't understand what I'm saying at all. Really. The hate crime has nothing to do with the US flag, its a seperate issue entirely. An American burning an American flag cannot be committing a hate crime. The laws do not allow for it. period.

#2 As others have said, you can't be convicted of a hate crime without committing one, per #1 right here, it can't happen in relation to our flag, so again, your comparison fails to hold weight.

#3 I wasn't being specific to you about the whole "kellem for burning a flag" thing, I had read jon-the-antagonistic-dictator's post earlier.

#4 again, read what I'm saying with some understanding that Freedom is far more important to some people than others. if "we" as a nation allow this to be banned in our Constitution, "we" as a nation become little more than petty self important asshats wrapped in some pretty red white and blue clothe. Its an all inclusive "we" there. Don't get all huffy with me, I was counting myself among the petty and self important. You on the other hand, were not.

Lastly:

The whole flag burning thing returns to a core point of contention. is the Flag of a nation an iconic Idol of that nation? I BELIEVE it can't be, otherwise the nation is nothing more than a very limited mentality of people who can't think past what they look at.

A nation must be far more than a symbol, a flag, an animal, or a location. A nation must be represented by its ideals and its beliefs. The United States has millions of these types of discussion all the time, and you know why? Our single most IMPORTANT ideal and belief. That we have the freedom to speak our mind and show our pleasure as well as our displeasure with our government, without fear of reprisal.

I BELIEVE that the United States is a grande Idea, and its peoples are the free-est individuals in the world today, but if we as a nation become so focused on the WHAT(a flag) and forget about the WHY(our freedoms and ideals and beliefs set down in the Constitution and other documents) then we've forever lost that most precious gift we call Liberty.

[RendeR]

I have just one argument on the issue...Yes, the burning of the flag is portected under the "Freedom of expression"..But do you think when the Constitution was wrote they had this in mind?

Try burning the flag back in the late say 18th century.....


You make a valid point, but in those days in the wide world you were defined explicitly by the country you came from. bigotry was acceptable. There were Kings and other Royals mucking about who in most cases could draw a family line connection with their flags.

Whatever the founding fathers intended 219 years ago, they knew they weren't perfect. They wrote the Constitution based on overall beliefs. Read through the original, see how many "specifics" you can find in it. Its very rare. The founding fathers didn't nit-pick. They wrote what they did because they knew it had to breathe and grow and accomodate future generations. They knew they couldn't pin-point anything because it might change in a year or 200.

The times have changed since then, but their most basic beliefs which they stipulated in that document have done so BECAUSE they were not specific about any one thing.

Sorry to babble, long story short, the intended to be vague.

[Buccaneer]

A lot of you guys are funny and I mean that in the most sincerest way possible.

My view on this? I fully applaud and support all of the time and efforts that went into this grandstanding issue. Perhaps that actually took time away from "doing something" real that would screw up something worse or waste more expenditures?

[SuperGrover]

The structures of our government protect these rights, however, only because they are in the Constitution. There is no abstract concept of individual liberty or universal human rights that transcends our Constitution. This distinction does not really come up much because our Constitution embodies most of what we consider to be "universal human rights." But, if tomorrow, an amendment passes that says that the government can shoot on sight anyone who is not a Methodist--then that is the law of the land. Such an amendment, of course, may lead to revolution, succession, etc.--but, that would be the official policy of the government, and no abstract sense of human rights would trump that in the courts, legislature, or executive branch.

So, you may think that protecting flag burning as political speech is an essential aspect of a free government. And I agree with you, and would oppose any amendments to change the Constitution in that regard. But, the only reason that the government protects it is because of the Constitution. Universal human rights are not so universal in that regard.

Very well said. Thus should be used to debate anyone who claims they have the right to do "X" b/c it is in the Constitution. There are no universal "rights." That should be crystal clear to all but it never seems that way in my dealings in the topsy-turvy world.

[Grammaticus]

http://gamersmafia.com/cache/thumbnails/193x193/storage/users/0/o_rly_owl.jpg

A bit slow, but you can never have too much of the owl...
Owl right you freaks, one of the key points that comes up in the flag debate is about hate crimes. Mostly along the lines that burning the American flag could be considered a hate crime. That is one of the stronger reasons not to ban flag desecration in the constitution. That would give legitimacy to hate crimes and codify hate crimes in the constitution.

Also, people are starting to target flag burning as a hate crime. Understanding that hate crimes are a relatively new legislative concept, it is just starting to evolve. I'm not about to search for a case where someone has been prosecuted. The point is, that kind of action is likely to happen in the future, if it has not already. In the southwest, people have burned the Mexican flag in protest of illegal immigration and some have called for this to be a hate crime.

Even posters on this thread admit they can support burning another countries flag as a hate crime. One of the tenets of hate crime legislation is that it targets national origin and that would include an American flag as well. In 2005 Hillary Clinton said she likened burning an American flag to burning a cross.

Giving the same crime a different penalty based upon a persons status goes against one of the most valuable gifts western culture has provided, the rule of law. The rule of law means all people are equally subject to the laws and represented a shift from a legal system based on a person's status.

No culture prior to western culture ever applied the rule of law, they all based their legal systems on status. I don't think it would make America a better place to revert to a legal system based on status.

As I said before, I don't support a constitutional amendment banning flag desecration. I think it is a good way to see who the nut jobs are.

The more I think about it, the fact someone wants to burn an American flag is more a symbol of our strength as a super power. Nobody really wants to desecrate something that has no value. It just would not piss anyone that matters off.

[Mac Howard]

I don't know the exact quote but it goes something like ths:

"What value freedom of expression if not the freedom to offend?"

Sounds good to me.

[albionmoonlight]

Hmmm. A three page thread about flag burning and there has been no need to invoke Godwin's Law (yet).

I'm impressed. This may be some sort of record for teh internets.

[wade moore]

Hmmm. A three page thread about flag burning and there has been no need to invoke Godwin's Law (yet).

I'm impressed. This may be some sort of record for teh internets.

I love Wikipedia.

I never new this was the name for this law of the internet.. I knew of the law, just not the name.

[Grammaticus]

Okay, rather than look it up, I'm just gonna ask. What is Godwin's Law?

[John Galt]

Even posters on this thread admit they can support burning another countries flag as a hate crime. One of the tenets of hate crime legislation is that it targets national origin and that would include an American flag as well. In 2005 Hillary Clinton said she likened burning an American flag to burning a cross.

You really need to provide some support for repeated assertions on this issue. Nearly every lawyer on this board has posted that you are wrong on the law here. Yet, you keep repeating your same claim. Find one prosecution for burning a foreign flag as a hate crime (or even a statute under which it may potentially be a crime) and you could have some argument. Until then, your continued repitition of a "fact" does not actually make it a "fact."

[John Galt]

Okay, rather than look it up, I'm just gonna ask. What is Godwin's Law?

That's a question only a Nazi would ask.

[flere-imsaho]

I never new this was the name for this law of the internet.. I knew of the law, just not the name.

Not to sound too old school, but I remember being on USENET when the phrase came into common practice. Over a decade later, we're all still yelling at each other over the IntarWeb. :)

[flere-imsaho]

Okay, rather than look it up, I'm just gonna ask. What is Godwin's Law?

Oh, just look it up. Doing a little research won't kill you. While you're at it, look up some facts to backup some of your unfounded assertions in this thread.

[albionmoonlight]

Okay, rather than look it up, I'm just gonna ask. What is Godwin's Law?

In short, whenever there is a debate on the internet, someone will--without fail--eventually compare their opponent or opponent's position to Hitler or the Nazis. Whoever is the first person to do that "loses" the debate.

[Joe Canadian]

People put way too much importance in a piece of cloth... and before anyone says I'm anti-American, I have no problem with someone burning the Canadian flag.

[Dutch]

People put way too much importance in a piece of cloth... and before anyone says I'm anti-American, I have no problem with someone burning the Canadian flag.

Should the USA ban people from feeling attached to the flag? Should we ban the 'cloth' (sic)? I don't think you get it. People can feel whatever they want for the flag. It says so in our Constitution and reiterated just the other day. Maybe in Canada you are not allowed to be proud of your flag without being rediculed, but in America, we are free to burn the flag or to cherish it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't think you get it. People can feel whatever they want for the flag. It says so in our Constitution and reiterated just the other day.

Just so long as those feelings don't involve the act of burning it?

[Dutch]

Just so long as those feelings don't involve the act of burning it?

I support whatever the Constitution says, so long as 2/3 of the people who can ammend it agree to it. I believe the system works, first and foremost.

I have a right to disagree, but I don't have the right to over-step the Constitution. Hopefully you at least understand where I'm coming from on that.

On the flip-side, if that same process determined that burning the flag was unconstitutional, I would assume you would disagree, but still respect the Constitution and it's process.

[sachmo71]

Should the USA ban people from feeling attached to the flag? Should we ban the 'cloth' (sic)? I don't think you get it. People can feel whatever they want for the flag. It says so in our Constitution and reiterated just the other day. Maybe in Canada you are not allowed to be proud of your flag without being rediculed, but in America, we are free to burn the flag or to cherish it.


My interpretation of his post is more along the lines that in a country as free as ours, putting so much emphasis on the sanctity of a symbol is a bit counterintuitive.

[Joe Canadian]

Should the USA ban people from feeling attached to the flag? Should we ban the 'cloth' (sic)? I don't think you get it. People can feel whatever they want for the flag. It says so in our Constitution and reiterated just the other day. Maybe in Canada you are not allowed to be proud of your flag without being rediculed, but in America, we are free to burn the flag or to cherish it.

???

I never suggested people are not allowed to feel proud of their country, nor did I say you shouldn't be allowed to be proud of a flag... however as sachmo71 pointed out I think people put too much importance in a symbol. The banning of burning that symbol as a form of protest, IMO, goes against the ideals that the symbol in question is supposed to represent.

And I have no idea where you'd get a silly idea that Canadians are not allowed to be proud of their flag...

[Dutch]

My interpretation of his post is more along the lines that in a country as free as ours, putting so much emphasis on the sanctity of a symbol is a bit counterintuitive.

And I am saying it's not just any symbol or any piece of cloth and that's not what they voted on. They voted on the American Flag in particular.

[Dutch]

???

I never suggested people are not allowed to feel proud of their country, nor did I say you shouldn't be allowed to be proud of a flag... however as sachmo71 pointed out I think people put too much importance in a symbol. The banning of burning that symbol as a form of protest, IMO, goes against the ideals that the symbol in question is supposed to represent.

And I have no idea where you'd get a silly idea that Canadians are not allowed to be proud of their flag...

So are you proud of your flag?

[Joe Canadian]

So are you proud of your flag?

No, I am proud of my country. The flag is simply a symbol of my country, on its own it means very little... just like a postcard of our Parliment Buildings in Ottawa.

[Dutch]

No, I am proud of my country. The flag is simply a symbol of my country, on its own it means very little... just like a postcard of our Parliment Buildings in Ottawa.

Good for you.

So why would people burn your flag then instead of a postcard of your Parliament Buildings in Ottowa? Wouldn't they both accomplish the same task? The answer is obviously they wouldn't. Because your flag means so much more to so many people than that postcard. Burning the flag is designed to incense, hurt, or outrage a particular group of people who are proud of that flag.

The point being that you simply cannot continue to refer to your flag as a simple piece of cloth or just any symbol, lest we are discussing two different things entirely.

Back to my flag, I am not for a Constitutional ammendment to protect cloth or symbols. I supported the ammendment because it protected the flag of my country against acts designed (or not) that incense or hurt those who have fought for it, those who have family and loved ones who have died for it and those of us who have chosen to simply be proud of it.

For example, when you are far from home, that symbol represents home. Those soldiers in Iraq fight for our country, but when they go to their barracks at night, that country isn't visible, so they rely on the flag to remind them of that. It is true that some soldiers ignore it, some could care less about it, but to others, it's priceless.

But again, I have my opinion on why it's more important than any piece of cloth or symbol and you have yours on why it's not. That's what freedom is all about. I lost in a vote and you won (or your ideal anyway). That's the way it works. While I disagree, I can understand why people think the US flag should not be protected, and I accept the decision. That's the way our country works.

[wade moore]

But again, I have my opinion on why it's more important than any piece of cloth or symbol and you have yours on why it's not. That's what freedom is all about. I lost in a vote and you won (or your ideal anyway). That's the way it works. While I disagree, I can understand why people think the US flag should not be protected, and I accept the decision. That's the way our country works.

I've been on the other side in this debate, and I must say...

Well said.

[Subby]

I actually wouldn't get too bent out of shape if their was an amendment that said you couldn't burn the flag. I think it is representative of something sacred and protecting it is a nice nod to the men and women who gave their lives for our country.

The problem is interpretation and enforcement. Define desecration. In some jurisdictions an overzealous sherrif's deputy might haul some teenage girl in for wearing an american flag-patterned bikini. Or maybe someone accidently leaves their flag flying in a rainstorm and gets cited. I guess in a perfect world you could say, "burn the flag, get arrested" but our society is too nuanced and complex to be able to deal with enforcing that kind of protection.

In the end, I would rather see effort spent on flag and civics education. Teach respect for the flag, teach respect for the people who fought for what it symbolizes.

[Subby]

dola

Another reason an amendment probably wouldn't work (http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003585.html).

[Galaxy]

I actually wouldn't get too bent out of shape if their was an amendment that said you couldn't burn the flag. I think it is representative of something sacred and protecting it is a nice nod to the men and women who gave their lives for our country.



While the flag is a symbol, but aren't they fighting for the freedoms that the country presents, such as the freedom to burn the flag in protest?

[st.cronin]

While the flag is a symbol, but aren't they fighting for the freedoms that the country presents, such as the freedom to burn the flag in protest?

That's the irony of the debate.

[Dutch]

That's the irony of the debate.

How about the irony of the debaters. I've burned more American flags than most protesters could ever dream of. (Air Force Honor Guard details to dispose of old base flags--the proper way to dispose of old "unservicable" flags is to burn them.)

[flere-imsaho]

Out of curiosity, what's the "correct" way for the average person to dispose of the flag? I've got a very old one here, and should really replace it, but it feels a bit wrong to just dump it in the trash.

[sabotai]

Out of curiosity, what's the "correct" way for the average person to dispose of the flag? I've got a very old one here, and should really replace it, but it feels a bit wrong to just dump it in the trash.

Take it to a local government building and burn it in the street.

[Toddzilla]

Take it to a local government building and burn it in the street.Lawl.

Actually, any Boy Scout troop will take your flag and dispose of it for you.

[Galaxy]

How about the irony of the debaters. I've burned more American flags than most protesters could ever dream of. (Air Force Honor Guard details to dispose of old base flags--the proper way to dispose of old "unservicable" flags is to burn them.)

Not sure what that means.

[Dutch]

In the military, you are supposed to store all your old flags and in ceremony, you take the flags 'out of service' and burn them (as opposed to dumping them in the back dumpster). But the military is a bit different when it comes to the flag. Not sure how everybody else is supposed to do it, but I'll assume the local fire or police department collects them if you want them to destroy the flag for you.

[Karlifornia]

This debate has been fun to read through. Mainly because I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. The only thing that I read in this thread that surprised me was when some people said they would want to kill someone for burning a flag. I mean, if the flag itself became animated and cured cancer, I might want to assault someone for burning the flag, but even then I wouldn't want to end their life. Wanting to kill someone is pretty hardcore. Then again, wishing death upon someone is part of freedom of expression, just like burning a flag.

I guess I'm just sort of holding out hope that when people said "I would kill someone if they burned a flag", it was in that way you say it to a friend. "Man, if you spill a drop of that expensive tequila I bought, I'll kill you, dude. Seriously. I'll fucking kill you if waste a drop of that liquid gold."

"Dude...if you burn that flag, I'm gonna kill you bro. You're my dawg, but if you create even one ash with that beautiful flag, I will kill you."

Flag burning is dumb, though. It's pretty much a waste of time and money. If I had a reason to blame the entire country on my problems, I would take a sharpie and write "USA" on an old t-shirt and burn that before I went to Abercrombie & Jingoist and bought a flag to burn. I have much more important things to spend my cash on, like hard drugs for kids and guns to protect my land.

[Dutch]

This debate has been fun to read through. Mainly because I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. The only thing that I read in this thread that surprised me was when some people said they would want to kill someone for burning a flag. I mean, if the flag itself became animated and cured cancer, I might want to assault someone for burning the flag, but even then I wouldn't want to end their life. Wanting to kill someone is pretty hardcore. Then again, wishing death upon someone is part of freedom of expression, just like burning a flag.

I guess I'm just sort of holding out hope that when people said "I would kill someone if they burned a flag", it was in that way you say it to a friend. "Man, if you spill a drop of that expensive tequila I bought, I'll kill you, dude. Seriously. I'll fucking kill you if waste a drop of that liquid gold."

"Dude...if you burn that flag, I'm gonna kill you bro. You're my dawg, but if you create even one ash with that beautiful flag, I will kill you."

I'm sure, as your examples state, people are just excercising their freedom of speech. I've never known somebody to kill a flag burner/hater.

Flag burning is dumb, though. It's pretty much a waste of time and money. If I had a reason to blame the entire country on my problems, I would take a sharpie and write "USA" on an old t-shirt and burn that before I went to Abercrombie & Jingoist and bought a flag to burn. I have much more important things to spend my cash on, like hard drugs for kids and guns to protect my land.

I'm glad you feel this way. As you stated, you don't care either way. The problem is when people like you burn the flag for no other reason than to anger Americans who do care about the flag. Those people are just as much assholes as those people saying, "Dude, if you burn that flag, I'm gonna kill you." The difference in my mind, is that the flag burner/hater has overstepped the free speech boundary in order to cause pain/anger/outrage for those who care about the flag and to incite others who either hate the flag or don't care about it to rally to their base.

[ISiddiqui]

the flag burner/hater has overstepped the free speech boundary in order to cause pain/anger/outrage for those who care about the flag

"overstepped the free speech boundary"? Isn't the whole point of free speech to be able to say things that may cause pain/anger/outrage?

[QuikSand]

With a few slight edits...

The difference in my mind, is that the [flag stuff] has overstepped the free speech boundary in order to cause pain/anger/outrage for [some] and to incite others ... to rally to their base.

...this almost sounds like you'd like a constitutional amendment banning the flag burning debate.

[st.cronin]

With a few slight edits...



...this almost sounds like you'd like a constitutional amendment banning the flag burning debate.

That would be AWESOME. I would be so in favor of that.

[Toddzilla]

Abercrombie & JingoistThat some funny stuff right there, it is.

[Dutch]

With a few slight edits...



...this almost sounds like you'd like a constitutional amendment banning the flag burning debate.

And that sounds like a constitutional amendment banning anything. And banning anything is like...

I understand the slippery slope argument, I've stated that. But again, I supported the amendment not desecrating the flag and have no problem with the flag of our country being protected by the Constitution.

Now carry on down the slippery slope and if the next amendment is "banning debate" or "banning anything" then Americans would not be interested. And that's where the slippery slope argument fails.