Nothing starts my day better than seeing a blonde with a hose in her hand....clearly enjoying the hose....gripping the hose and pumping th....

The amendment doesn't ban flag burning. It just puts the choice to restrict American Flag desecration back in the legislature, where it belongs. The "precious right" to burn flags has only been around since 1989. And there were some very effective anti-American protests prior to 1989 using just speech, not fire. I was there for some of them. I remember. There are other ways to show complete contempt for America, without using public "fighting words," without desecrating a symbol that millions of heroes have traveled to their final resting place underneath. There are a million and a half other ways to show contempt for America. You just don't get this one. Not free of charge. Carbon-oxygen chemical reactions on the street, as visually powerful as they can be, are not "protected free speech." Until 1989 they never were.

Sorry, RBMN, I can't back you up on this. I bled for my country in the Army, too (ok, it was a barracks drinking game gone awry, but work with me here.)

It's just a symbol, and these apes can't do anything to harm that which is symbolized. Give them their puny outrage and their idiotic means of expressing it. All the better (for those who haven't already) to recognize them for the f*cktards they are.

Re: Brian Jones at June 23, 2005 10:52 AM

Fortunately, if enough people believe the Constitution should protect the American Flag, there's a way to MAKE the Constitution protect the American Flag. I'm not looking to throw people in jail, but I want it to cost them something--$50 fine, something!

"Fortunately, if enough people believe the Constitution should protect the American Flag, there's a way to MAKE the Constitution protect the American Flag."

So to preserve the flag, we trash the Constitution and the freeom it protects. Got it.

Well, RBMN, don't they have to actually buy the flag to burn in the first place? Can't that be considered their fine? But, even beyond that, where do you draw the line? Would, say, a shirt with the American flag stenciled on it be taboo to burn? What about those small novelty flags everyone waves during Independence Day parades? What about a piece of paper with the flag printed on it? Perhaps you could explain what your definition of flag is. The freedom of speech and expression is, I think, more important than the symbol of the flag itself. That's not to say I like watching it burn; I don't. But I support the right of others to burn it, even if I disagree with what they're doing.

So, I guess Thorley the Liberal is looking for a purity test. Fine with me, Thorley. The right to free speech is sacred, huh?

Ok. That means I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. That means I can call people child molesters and rapists, slandering them. Sounds good to me.

Of course, both of the last examples are times where our civil society has chosen to limit this holy right to free speech. Most intelligent citizens of this country know there is a line where right to free speech does not cross.

Protesters can still fly the flag upside down or do other things to the flag. Burning it crosses the line. Just as slander crosses the line for free speech.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Thorley has been all that "liberal" here in the past.

Dave:

"Ok. That means I can yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. That means I can call people child molesters and rapists, slandering them. Sounds good to me."

Okay, just one second here. If you can honestly make the claim that yelling "Fire!," calling people rapists, et al, is tantamount to burning a flag. . . well, I have some Dick Durbin analogies you might subscribe to as well.

"Most intelligent citizens of this country know there is a line where right to free speech does not cross."

Yeah, and that line, typically, is drawn when somebody stands to actually be physically harmed or unfairly/inaccurately labeled in such a way that it can cause them unwarranted public backlash. Explain to me how flag burning does any of that, unless I throw a burning flag in your hair.

"Protesters can still fly the flag upside down or do other things to the flag. Burning it crosses the line."

Again, explain how. Unless you're a pyrophobe, I don't see it.

Ryan, my examples are meant to try to show you that there are LIMITS to free speech. No? We DO happen to have laws on the books that make it illegal to incite a riot or slander someone. Why is that? Because our society deemed there is a limit to your rights of free speech. My position is that burning a flag does cross the line and deserves to be codified as not appropriate. You don't, I guess.

In the case of slander, those are just words, right? And the flag is just a piece of cloth, right?

Sorry, but most of this country do deem burning of a flag as inapproriate speech. You can cling to a libertarian view of this, but the flag is more than just cloth, its a symbol. Protesters can burn bed sheets or bras, if they want to burn cloth. When they desecrate the symbol of our country that people have died to protect, it does cross the line.

Frankly....I wanna know where I can find that chick with the hose. She's got a nice....grip.

As far as the Dick Turban link, I'll say this:

Dick Turban can say what he wants, but when his speech on the Senate floor equates the starvation and death of millions in Germany to a few terrorists being too cold in Club Gitmo, he crosses the free speech line. In equating the actions, he tries to make the case that our soldiers are murderers. The public reaction has shown there are LIMITS to free speech and Dick Turban is paying the price for crossing the line.

There is a line. I say flag burning crosses it. The debate is where the line exists, not if it exists.

Hey Mitch: Where's the rant about the Red StarTib's "news" article on the Emily's list poll? Listening to Emily's List lecture Republicans is like listening to an ax murderer give a seminar on morality.

Re: Posted by Thorley Winston at June 23, 2005 11:32 AM

> So to preserve the flag, we trash the
> Constitution and the freeom it protects.
> Got it.

The US Constitution is what a super-majority of American citizens, following the amendment procedure, say it is.

Was the pre-Civil-War US Constitution too sacred to change? I don't think so. I'm calling for changing it the correct way. Not changing it just because Justice Souter woke up on the wrong side of the bed one day.

"Ryan, my examples are meant to try to show you that there are LIMITS to free speech."

And those examples you cite happen to be instances where people stand to be physically harmed or falsely accused in such a way as to harm their reputations in the public eye. Those limits to free speech, such as they are, are pragmatic and logical in that they're in place to protect the people. Show me how burning a flag somehow harms someone, and I'll give you a gold star. And I'm talking more than just offending someone or making them shake their fists in self-righteous rage.

"Sorry, but most of this country do deem burning of a flag as inapproriate speech."

Assuming for the moment that you have numbers to back this up (which would still be irrelevent) you're again making the leap that "inappropriate" = "dangerous/slanderous," which, boy, are we talking a slippery slope with that one. Come on, I say inappropriate things every single day. My blog is awash in inappropriate language and bad taste. Because something makes people uncomfortable, doesn't mean it should necessarily be banned.

"When they desecrate the symbol of our country that people have died to protect, it does cross the line."

Again, I'll poise the same questions I asked of RBMN: Where do you draw the line? Would, say, a shirt with the American flag stenciled on it be taboo to burn? What about those small novelty flags everyone waves during Independence Day parades? What about a piece of paper with the flag printed on it? Perhaps you could explain what your definition of a flag is. At what point does the flag lose its vaunted "symbol" status? Because, it occurs to me that a child with a flag painted on their cheek may defile that flag at some point in the day with an ice cream cone.

And, damnit, now you have me debating on Mitch's site with someone other than Ernst Stavro Blofeld, so you're now in those esteemed ranks. Damn you, Dave! Damn YOUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

"The public reaction has shown there are LIMITS to free speech and Dick Turban is paying the price for crossing the line."

Dave, not to continue whipping a deceased equine, but here's the deal:

Durban had every right under the sun to say what he did, as asinine and ill advised as it was, and he deserved to be smacked down for it. The First Amendment protects his right to say stupid things. What the First Amendment doesn't do is protect him from the public reaction to him saying stupid things. Like all of us, he has the right to free speech, but he doesn't have the right to free speech without consequences. That's the beauty of the First Amendment: the people decide what they want and don't want to hear, and they hold people accountable, not some list of taboo words, phrases and anaologies stapled at the end of the Bill Of Rights.

Likewise with flag burning. People have the right to burn the flag. But, they do so with the understanding (hopefully) that there could be consequences down the road depending on the public's response. Someone who remembers a flag burner during a job interview could think to themselves "Hey, I remember this jerk. They burned a flag! Next applicant!"

My whole point is that THIS is where it should be fought out--the question of laws concerning respect for the flag--here in the public square, with no wafting smoke, and also in the legislatures. Not in Supreme Court chambers, where they've proven that they don't understand English that well.

We all can have a good debate on this issue, and it has been a good debate. I think we all can make good points.

For those of you who are fine with flag burning, I am curious. Are you also okee-dokee with cross burnings? Is that free speech too? Afterall, its just a piece of wood, right?

Or is there a line?

Actually, I don't think there's anything, from a free speech perspective, wrong with burning a cross. I would never do it, and I find the practice--wait for it--offensive as all hell, but I don't think it should be Constitutionally banned.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't in place to ensure you're never offended; they're in place to ensure that you and others have basic rights that can be exercised so you can find out for yourself if others find your exercise of those rights offensive. Trent Lott ran amuck of this reality. As did Dick Durbin. Howard Dean makes a religion out of it. Judging by my e-mail and comment box, I've offended my share of people, too. But, thank God I have the right to do so. I'd be a less free person if I didn't.

I personally oppose both flag burnings and cross burnings. I oppose legislation to ban flag burning.

The difference with cross burning is that it historically associated with a terroristic threat; the Klan used it as a friendly reminder there was a lynching underway. Flag burnings at present have no such baggage.

Dave, in small part: "Sorry, but most of this country do deem burning of a flag as inapproriate speech."

Sorry but there are many things that "most of this country ... deem ... inappropriate speech." The entire purpose of the first amendment protections on speech and press is to protect the expression of unpopular opinions. Speech that is thought appropriate scarcely needs to be protected, after all; it's the offensive sort that needs protection. The phrase to remember is, "Tyranny of the majority", which is, after all, still tyranny.

I agree absolutely with Ryan: If you want to burn your own flag, cross, Koran, or Vikings program, it's your right, just don't try to burn (or prevent me from burning) mine.

I think I can agree that I really don't like amending the Constitution for these kind of issues. We shouldn't have to. Congress should be able to pass laws to deal with it.

Unfortunately, the Judicial branch isn't leaving us much choice. Just as in the case of gay marriage.

With regards to not burning crosses (or doing a little Maplethorpe action and putting them in jars of urine) or burning flags, I guess we have to agree to disagree. The symbol of the flag is one of those cases where I can't just turn my back and ignore the level of desecration.

"...I can't just turn my back and ignore the level of desecration."

You aren't required to ignore it. Denounce it, post pictures of the perpetrators, burn a Chinese flag, whatever. Just don't try to ban it*.

* Note that I'm not saying you can't try to ban it, just that I don't want you to, and if you do try, I'll work to defeat your attempt. Argument, not prohibition.

"Congress should be able to pass laws to deal with it."

That's just it; if Congress DID pass laws dealing with it, they'd be Unconstitutional, and I would hope the Supreme Court would deem it as such. Although, after today's ruling, and the medical marijuana ruling, I'm not sure SCOTUS has any idea what the Constitution even means any more.

From now on, I'm going to write Koran verses on my flag. If you burn it, well, good luck with that. :-)

Fair enough. Just don't flush it down the toilet. I've heard the Islamic world can get mighty pissed off about something like that.

I'm with Dave on this one. The Dave who likes the chick with the hose. Now if only she was spraying another chick in an American flag t-shirt...

Re: Ryan at June 23, 2005 04:28 PM

No, I meant "good luck with that" in the way that I might say it if some NUT tells me: "legally, federal income taxes are totally voluntary. I haven't paid any for years." The kind of "good luck" which really means, "just leave me out of it, thank you." :-)

Happy to agree with Mitch on this one.

Must be that libertarian streak.