I still firmly believe that Congress should be concentrating on the most pressing issues facing the country: the war in Iraq, national security, immigration, outsourcing of jobs, healthcare, and energy, among others, and not spending time on such blatantly political issues as same sex marriage and the flag burning amendment.
That being said, Paul Greenberg makes a strong case for the flag amendment in his latest syndicated column. Greenberg writes:
But it isn't criticizing the flag that some of us propose to ban. Any street corner orator should be able to stand on a soapbox and badmouth the American flag all day long — and apple pie and motherhood, too, if that's his inclination. It's a free country. It is actually assaulting Old Glory, it's defacing the Stars and Stripes, it's an act, the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, that ought to be against the law, just as it once was. The Flag Amendment would ban an indecent act, not an exercise of free speech.
8 comments:
But we shouldn't elevate a symbol of freedom above freedom itself.
While burning the flag is a physical action, it is still speech (Texas v. Johnson), just like wearing an armband to protest a war (Tinker v. Des Moines), participating in a picket line (Thornhill v. Alabama), or wearing potentially offensive clothing (Cohen v. California).
Clearly dangerous or harmful action should be outlawed, but I do not believe that warrants an across-the-board ban on symbolic speech, as the proposed amendment would do.
It's done for now. They will
trot it back out for the next election. It's easier than talking about poorly-managed wars, a growing underclass, health care, degradation of the environment, global warming, FEMA, Homeland Security, possibly illegal wiretapping. Too bad none of these political varmits can stand up on their hind legs like a man (or woman) and speak the truth.
Burning the flag, as odious as it is to me personally, should be a the right of the individual.
It's called freedom of speech.
Bush and the neocon gang that controls our nation and the neocon pundits on Fox News have done far more to dishonor our flag than anyone who would choose to burn it.
The anti-flag burning amendment is a diversionary tactic. So is the anti-gay marriage amendment.
Those in power can't win the war, won't do anything to lower the obscene federal budget deficit, "get" Osama, and do anything that will impede big oil from making trillions of dollars in profits on the backs of the working people of America.
They're the disgrace.
If we want to honor our flag, we should kick these scoundrels out of office.
Nice to discover this site; I hadn't come across it before, and I think I'll make return visits.
I disagree with dbh on a couple of grounds. First, this isn't an across-the-board ban on symbolic speech; the amendment itself simply states, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." In fact, this doesn't prohibit the destruction of the flag; it simply establishes that Congress has the power to do so. As such, it's another volley in the ongoing separation of powers fight, not an assault on freedom.
Second, while the Court has decided it's speech (via the cases dbh cites), there is ample room for disagreement. The amendment is the way supporters have chosen to codify that disagreement.
Finally, part of the reason I wrote a response to the News-Leader's recent editorial was because of my understanding of political speech. Much as I dislike the content of the Bushitler types of rants, they are essentially stating personal contempt toward a fellow citizen, no matter how elevated his office. Burning a flag, on the other hand, is a generalized slam at the identity of America itself, a (however feeble) chop at the base of the trunk. While it is a measure of America's strength that she can deign to ignore these cuts, it is imprudent and potentially very dangerous to declare the axblows inviolable.
I think we must always reserve the right to forcibly respond to fundamental attacks on our identity. Countries that lose the will to do that die.
Mr. Fletcher,
First, thanks for your intelligent, informed, and rational response. It's a welcome respite from the usual style of blog comments. That said, let me clarify and extend the points I made earlier. First, you're right that the amendment by itself does not ban symbolic speech. I made a logical leap there, partially to prevent an excessively lenghty comment. I'm essentially saying that limiting symbolic speech in this context gives precedential weight (both legal and political) to further such limitations. Accordingly, while this amendment might not ban picketing or clothing choices or other such expressions by itself, it does seem to be a worrying step in that direction.
Second, I think that desecrating a flag without fear of prosecution is (in an irony probably lost on most people who would do such a thing) the ultimate expression of the values the flag represents. We allow citizens to speak and act as they wish, as long as it doesn't physically harm others. Not prosecuting flag desecration demonstrates our willingness to tolerate ideas that we find deplorable and removes any sense of martydom or moral high ground flag-burners may seek. We can come down hard on such actions, but that doesn't mean we should.
In the end, we would gain nothing by prosecuting flag desecration but we would, in my opinion, sacrifice our true values to protect a mere symbol of those same values.
We'd better be careful, dbh. We may have a reasoned, civil conversation in the blogosphere. Just think of how we'll ruin the reputation!
First, I agree that the amendment represents a step toward banning more "symbolic" speech. This does not fill me with consternation, in the first place, because I think the Court has gone too far in loosening the definition of "speech" (while tightening it with true political speech via campaign finance reform laws.) But even if it did worry me, this is merely a step. Rather than a greased slide toward dystopia as some critics have painted it, this represents the natural volley of cyclical opinion that occurs in vibrant democracies. Change in these matters tends to come slowly and incrementally when expressed through political bodies (as opposed to the precipitious changes caused by certain Court decisions.)
On your second point, I think it overstates the case to say that flag-burning is the "ultimate" expression of core American values. To me, that sounds like someone saying the ultimate expression of free will is to reject God, the purported Author of free will. Perhaps it embodies the principle of absolute freedom--but that's all it embodies, and free will (and Americanism) are so much more.
I disagree with your contention that we CAN come down hard on such actions. We can't; the Supreme Court says so, and that's why the amendment is being proposed. Consequently, we aren't being tolerant of these acts; we're legally powerless to stop them, and thus no virtue accrues to us thereby. (Besides, burning a cross doesn't cause physical harm either. Is it virtuous to permit that?)
Again, I return to the ax-blow imagery. Right now we tend to think of flag-burners in a '60s context: well-meaning youth who are so disgusted with the status quo that they do something shocking to jerk us back to our senses. But what happens when the next group of flag-burners are La Raza separatists or Wahhabi Muslims who burn the flag because they want the U.S. dead? (And yes, these could be native citizens who do this; see Canada and Britain for this phenomenon.) Does keeping our "true values" really require hugging the viper to our chest?
Here's hoping we can enjoy this thread before it drops off the bottom of the blog page!
I'm busy traveling this weekend, and so will only take time to respond to one of Mr. Fletcher's points, namely, the ax-blow metaphor. I think the imagery of the metaphor is a bit misleading. First, unlike an axe to the base of a tree (or a viper to the chest), desecrating a flag is not, in my view, likely to bring down our country, our shared values, or whatever else the metaphorical tree might represent. At worst, it will incite others to action that we have already criminalized.
Second, I don't think the flag represents the base of the metaphorical tree. As I've said before, the flag is a symbol of our values, no more. Symbols are certainly important, but it seems to be in error to treat the symbols more reverentially than what is symbolized.
I think we'll close this chapter as the post has moved off the front page. We will simply have to agree to disagree. I think the flag is the base of the tree because it is not so much the symbol of our values as it is the symbol of our identity. A civilization that loses its sense of itself dies, and a country that can be tut-tutted out of its self-confidence is not healthy. But I'll leave it at that.
Post a Comment