And why? For those who don't know what I'm talking about, there have been groups in the United States pushing for an amendment banning desecration of the flag for many years now. It has never received the 67 votes required in the Senate for amendments, but the amendment only needs a couple more votes to pass, which it is close to now. Granted there are more critical issues to vote and debate on, but this one strikes me as controversial, yet less consequential than many political issues.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-22-flag-burning_x.htm?csp=24&RM_Exclude=Juno
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I already wrote to both of my Senators and told them to vote agaisnt it. I think it both infringes on 1st amendment free speech and is pretty much a waste of the Congress's time (and do we really want to put the burden of prosecuting flag burning demonstrators on our already over-stressed legal system?). The Congress should spend less time protecting symbols and more time protecting actual liberties (we all remember liberties don't we... those things we used to care about before we "needed" so much "security").
so where do symbols end and bodies begin? (I'm assuming that liberties have more to do with the body than flags do)
for starters, bodies aren't made out of cloth and sold in wal-mart
yeah, and bodies don't have stars on them.
but seriously, here are some questions:
1. What message do you think flag burning denotes? I can imagine anything from "I don't agree with the American govt's policies" (unlikely) to "Americans should DIE and America must FALL!" (this is where symbols end and bodies begin)
2. I think we can all agree that some kinds of speech should be censored. So, where should we draw the line between protected free speech and speech that needs to be censored. And which side of that line does [answer to question 1] fall?
3. If it falls on the censorable side, should we use the Constitution to censor it? I would say no. Although, unlike many, I don't hold up the Constitution as the infallible word of God, I think we should be selective with our ammendments. But I might be in favor of a law (although I thought there already was one, am i wrong?)
Ryan agrees, but he says he would spell ammendment with only one 'm' after the 'a'. moron. pshh
the problem is that for most americans (and a growing portion of the world) most liberties are made out of cloth (or metal or plastic) and sold at wal-mart.
Steve, I am not sure what you mean when you say "I think we can all agree that some kinds of speech should be censored"--before we just nod our heads at this and move on, it might be worthwhile to think about what speech should be censored (if any), why, and in what contexts. For example, many of the greatest works of literature in the 20th century (and before, of course) have been censored by someone--from James Joyce's _Ulysses_ to Mark Twain's _Huckleberry Finn_. Clearly, in these cases, censorship was used unjustly to suppress unpopular ideas and/or politics. As you may have already guessed, I am not sure that I can agree with you that some sorts of speech should be censored, given the track record of censorship around the world--and censorship is especially tricky in the United States where speech is protected (at least ostensibly) by the first amendment.
So, my question then becomes, what, in your view, are censorable speech-acts and who should be doing the censoring? Perhaps I can understand a little better where you're going with this if I have at least that much information.
Burning a flag is not the same as ordering a murder or yelling "fire" in a crowed theatre (this sort of speech-act is the only constitutionally censorable kind of speech). Burning a flag is a protest, and only tyrrants and despots pass laws prohibiting people to protest them (dissent is what makes democracy work-- it is the chief patriotic virtue!). Banning acts of protest against the government takes us one step closer to fascism (which is the general direction we've been heading for the past 3-4 years).
To answer Steve's question, there was a law against flag burning, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional (it violated the First Amendment) and struck it out of the books. The Congress would have to pass an amendment in order to circumvent the high court's ruling before any laws against it can be passed (it can't be unconstitutional if it's part of the Constitution).
Andy, I think you might have just rephrased my question #2 (if we insert Coye's example of yelling 'fire' as censorable speech). So, yeah, where should we draw the line?
Who censors speech? The people, via the government. FAA (dont even joke about bomb threats when you are in flight, people dont want that), FCC (after all, the airwaves belong to the public).
And answering question #1, Coye came down on the "I don't agree with the American govt's policies" side. Fair enough. If that really is basically the message that flag burning conveys, then I will agree that it should not be censored.
I figured this was as good a place as any to let you all know that if there has been ONE thing I've learned while deployed in Iraq, it's this:
Under Armour Performance Boxer Briefs are far and away the absolute best undergarment I've ever worn. The silky smooth stretch fabric provides the perfect combination of support, freedom, and breathability, and it just plain feels good against your skin. It's the perfect material to keep your sensitive areas cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Like the package says, "You'll never wear regular 'underwear' again."
I feel this has direct relevance to this thread since some people obviously are wearing some underpants that are a tad too tight. There is no such thing as "a waste of the Congress' time" - listen to them debate at some point. Nothing done there is without a good reason - and that reason generally consists of political maneuvering.
Flag-burning is right up there with hateful, violence-enducing speech that has been deemed censorable by the Supreme Court in the past. Flag-burning is a tactic employed only by those select fanatics that also advocate a violent overthrow of the US government, and that kind speech is consistently prohibited by the law and legal system alike.
If you want to argue about Congress wasting time, how about the hundreds of judicial nominations that been stalled by the minority in the Senate? Their stalling has directly resulted in our "over-stressed legal system."
I wear boxers, Adam, when I wear anything at all.
I assure you - you are missing out.
Yeah, I used to think boxer-briefs were the worst of both worlds, but have come to realize that they are actually the best of both worlds.
The dignity of boxers and the support of briefs.
Interesting tidbit, the old law was ruled unconstitutional by a vote of 5-4.
So, Adam, I'm a little confused by your post (although I fear that this thread has gone so far off topic that returning to "serious" (however seriously we are taking ourselves these days) may not be possible)--you take the position that "There is no such thing as "a waste of the Congress' time" - listen to them debate at some point. Nothing done there is without a good reason - and that reason generally consists of political maneuvering." So, ok, you may be right--you are certainly right about the maneuvering part--but then you say that there actually *is* such a thing as a waste of the Congress' time, namely, stalled judicial nominees. So (and here is the masterful stroke in bringing this discussion back on topic--a skill you develop when you teach college freshmen) it sounds like we are back to the line drawing issue to which Steve wants to point our attention--the category "waste of time in Congress," like the category "censorable speech," is a vague, loose term, and both terms are likely to be defined differently by conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, libertarians and big-big-big government proponents of any political stripe. So in a democratic society (to return to the first amendment) why do we need to restrict forms of protest? Why can't we talk about underwear or patriotism or nationalist ideology in whatever symbolic language we choose to use?
To start with, I don't actually feel too strongly about the flag-burning issue, but since no one else was coming up with much, I wanted to throw down something in favor of the constitutional ban. Just to make things interesting.
I'm willing to give up the "waste of Congress' time" thread. I was using a little hyperbole when I said that there's no such thing. But the point I was making is that an amendment to ban flag-burning shouldn't constitute a waste of time, not when compared with other issues. I was turning the argument in my favor by illustrating that using the flag-burning ban to generate debate and make a point was no less a waste of time than stalling judicial nominees in retaliation for completely unrelated issues.
And so, Mr. Logemann, I propose an answer to the question you posed to the class: the democratic society needs to restrict certain forms of speech in the same manner that it limits and restricts any other type of extreme individual behavior. Individual behavior which threatens harm to the greater community is justifiably censored. Individual rights are not so paramount that they take precedence over all other individuals' security. Thus, it is illegal to cry, "Fire!" in a crowded building. It is illegal to disturb the peace. It is illegal to make public speeches inciting the violent overthrow of the government. Distasteful speech is one thing; public speeches by the KKK are not censored. But burning a cross in someone's front lawn IS prohibited. Why? It is purposefully meant to induce violence. No one burns an American flag because they respectfully wish to disagree with the country's policies. The KKK burns a cross in someone's front lawn because they want them to die; it is a death threat. Burning the flag is another kind of threat, and I don't mean a threat to simply cast a vote against the current administration.
I'm really not in favor of burning flags at protests, but if they pass the amendment, I will be seriously tempted to burn a flag just to protest the amendment. Flag burning poses an immediate threat to no one. A government which dictates what forms of peaceful protest are legal and which are illegal has become a threat to all of its citizens.
By the way, klan cross-burnings are only illegal if they are used as intimidation against an individual or group of citizens. It is considered a specific and direct threat of violence, so it falls into the same category as making a bomb threat at the airport or calling someone up at night and making death threats. Burning a flag is a general protest against the government and cannot be lumped into the same category.
Okay, so I wouldn't turn you in to the authorities if you decided to hold a private party in your backyard to burn the flag in protest. That wouldn't be intimidating anyone. But once you take that flag-burning to the front steps of your town hall, then it becomes a violent act. Flag-burning is not just a simple general protest, though I obviously can't speak to the intentions of every protester who held a match to the Stars and Stripes. You're right in that it MIGHT not be a direct threat of violence to an elected official or government institution. But how else should it be interpreted if not as an advocation of violent action against the government?
I don't think that the US government will have turned Big Brother on us just by passing this constitutional amendment. It actually IS the government's job to decide what does or does not constitute a peaceful protest. I don't think burning ANYTHING on the steps of city hall can be called peaceful - much less the piece of cloth that symbolizes your very right to assemble in the first place.
Do you guys think that flag burnings in a country where flag burnings are legal will mean something differnt than flag burnings in a country where flag burnings are illegal?
Yes, flag-burning will mean not only "DEATH TO AMERICA!!"
It will mean "DEATH TO AMERICA, AND SCREW ITS CONSTITUTION!" I guess it's not that big of a difference.
Is no one else willing to admit that the flag might not be an entirely positive symbol? The United States of America is NOT synonymous with (and only with) liberty, freedom, democracy, goodness and warm-fuzzy-puppy-dog feelings. There are a lot of great things about America, but there are also some really horrible things in our past (racial slavery, Japanese internment, systematic genocide of native North Americans) as well as our present policies. I think that it is probably good that the flag gets saluted and honored and respected, but it might also be a good thing that it gets burned now and again. (Not everyone who salutes is saluting our history of selling smallpox-tainted blankets to tribes whose land we wanted, and not everyone who burns a flag is burning democracy.) Burning a flag is a powerful image and expression of intense displeasure--yes, even contempt. If someone is burning Old Glory, perhaps we should listen to what they say and honestly evaluate whether we have done something to generate such an intense response. Or we could say, "Shut up, this is democracy and if you don't like it we'll lock you up."
So where does Strauss stand on the issue? Or is he pulling a "Logemann" and asking everyone questions he has no intention of answering?
Extreme forms of protest do not engender productive or contemplative measures of change. But my reaction to burning a flag would not be, "shut up, this is a democracy so love it or leave it." My response is that we live in a democracy - use the appropriate methods to bring about change or appeal to the authorities.
um... civil rights movement
right, and the civil rights movement used nonviolent means of protest. Not what I would consider "extreme" - which I define as methods intended primarily to shock and offend in an effort to bring attention to a cause. I completely agree with the use of civil disobedience to protest an unjust policy. But violent, angry, hateful protests and demonstrations are counter-productive. What kind of response do you think they provoke, or are intended to provoke? Certainly not a thoughtful, "Well, I guess they really do mean what they say, maybe we should think about this a little harder."
Post a Comment