There is nothing more American than the right to burn the flag

It represents the primary principle in a democracy: the right to dissent against your government. It is the equivalent of the First Amendment in purely political terms.

Now, actually burning the flag is pretty pathetic because it kind of says that you aren't able to express your position coherently. But the right to do so couldn't have a higher place in democratic principles.

That right is symbolic of our deepest values. Those who would outlaw such a fundamental right of democratic expression understand next to nothing about what this country stands for, what the flag stands for, or what patriotism means in a democracy.

It just needs to be stated flat out. I'm tired of seeing Democrats on the defensive over issues where we hold the righteous high ground. It's always the defensiveness of 'Well I don't like it but that doesn't mean we're not patriots too.' We are the patriots and as with so much other bullshit from the right, the flag-burning prohibitionists are the unpatriotic ones.

We should be shoving their lack of patriotism down their throats and putting them on the run from real patriotic principles.

aka The Bill of Rights.

Instead of discussing poverty, war, taxes, crime, hunger, development, education, a free press, etc. we end up talking about burning flags.

It's like arguing over whether to call a Christmas tree a holiday tree. It's pointless, and serves no immediate value considering what we're dealing with.

it doesn't represent the government, it represent the nation. So burning it, is symbolically a suicidal act or at least "nationicide".

Besides freedom of expression - even if it is a fundamental right in a democracy has its limits too. Nothing is absolutely free. By burning the flag you can anger (probably you do) a lot of people that don't understand your act and feel profoundly offended. And their right has to be respected. Exactly the same way that burning Bibles or Korans is mostly considered as violence and not freedom of expression.

There are so many other ways to express your dissent with the government. Cindy Sheehan is doing it without burning any flags. And it's far more efficient.

No one has the 'right' to not be offended.

It makes no difference what the flag is or what it means. It makes difference what it represents. It makes no difference if you burn it as a political statement or just because you don't like the color scheme.
To make it illegal to burn the flag is another step in our march toward tyranny.


Also burning the bible or the Koran is not illegal and it isn't considered to violence. There is absolutely a right to express ones self in this manner. Anyone who opposes it , opposes our fundamental freedom and everything that our country once stood for.

:popcorn:

they are expressing "their fundamental rights" to scare "niggers" by desecrating religious symbols to induce fear (btw against the feelings of most Christians)

:sarcasm:

against a group of people within a society. It's not political expression except to the extent that your politics is terrorizing others.

If someone were to hold a rally to get people to start burning down America and burned the flag to incite them, that's incitement to violence and they should be arrested. Not for burning the flag, but for the provocation to violence.

If someone were to bring a dummy "Republican" to a protest and light it on fire, that too would be hate speech and to my mind an incitement to violence and they should be arrested.

Burning the flag is different. It is a representation of political free speech.

just because a part of the population which feels rightly represented by the same flag can feel deeply offended and then resort to violence, because they feel it was a violent and unjust act directed towards them.

if you burn your own flag in your chimney, it's your business. It's the public display that is the problem.

You have the right to run naked at home, but not at the next mall. Unless there is a consensus that running naked doesn't offend anybody.

is other people who don't like the flag being desecrated. That's enough for you; if you don't like it then it can't be done. Or else you might resort to violence, therefore it can't be allowed.

Does that work for the curtailment of anything any of us doesn't like - if you do it then I might get violent so you can't legally do it?

freedom stops where it starts to be a threat to others

there is a consensus in practically all western nations that freedom of expression is not absolute. Even in the USA there are limits.

That's why most European nations have laws against hate speech, just because it OFFENDS others and thus cause them harm even if it's not physical. There is a consensus about that. Of course in the PRIVACY of your home you can do what you want, but there is no ABSOLUTE FREEDOM when it comes to public display.

The libertarian approach "I don't give a fuck how about others feel so long I can behave the way I want" is very isolated in the rest of the world. It profoundly shows egoism and being unsensitive to the other members of the community.

According to you it shouldn't be illegal to show your penis on national TV since "No one has the 'right' to not be offended".
It wouldn't offend me but might offend some. Same with Bibles and flags

Of course they have the RIGHT to be offended, even if it's not (yet)written in law. And they have the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to protect themselves by demanding restrictions. That's how a democratic society works. It has NOTHING to do with tyranny, in reality it its opposite.

Damn good way to get the shit kicked out of ya. Others may express their feeling in a different way.

where they hurt other people. They are not intrinsically limited.

And certainly not based on the possibility that you could anger someone else. That's an impossible condition - by that standard Republicans simply shouldn't be allowed to speak in public, ever. They "profoundly offend" tens of millions. You could find countless other ways that that is a meaningless standard.

And "nationcide"? Come on.

The only part you got right was that there are better ways of expressing oneself, which I made a point of in the original post. That doesn't come close to invalidating the right to do it.

The right to do it represents a fundamental principle of political speech.

and on purpose slandering or attacking peoples values by desecrating their symbols or calling them derogatory names, accusing them falsely of horrible deeds etc.. etc.. (debate about hate speech). Basically burning a flag OUTSIDE a pure private display is an attack on another part of the nation.

Normally a flag is a symbol for a group, a nation. When you receive a foreigner officially you flag his flag as a mark of respect and friendship along yours.

When you burn it, it's a virtual act of war. The flag represent the nation so it represents everybody. When you burn it you virtually "burn" somebody or a group for which it is specially important. And the right of anger against it must be respected. Because it's not longer a political/ideological disagreement, it's an attack on their virtual beings.

You have the right to say that you disagree with Murtha, but not the right to call him a coward. Because it's slander. You have the right to disagree with the way the generals are conducting the war, but not the right to say that "all Marines are war-criminals".

"Fundamental rights are limited where they hurt other people"

Conflating them with flag desecration doesn't win your argument any points.

It isn't an attack 'on another part of the nation'. It's a statement on the nation itself. Nothing could be more valid in a democracy.

"When you burn it, it's a virtual act of war."

What nonsense. When you prohibit burning the flag in a democracy that is a virtual act of war against democracy. Disallowing it is an assault on this country's principles and makes you a traitor to everything America stands for. If you want to get all strident about it.

according to you it would OK to start burning Texan flags, if you don't like Texas.

Obviously we have different conceptions about democracy. If we agree that the flag represents the nation, it represents everybody. So it belongs to everybody. So someone can say - when it's question of a public display - you are burning MY flag too, and I resent that very deeply, because this flag is very precious to me. And therefore it must be respected... and limitations maybe voted...

and about your latest statement, I am discussing a "philosophical issue", nothing else. The US principles are the product of a certain ideology, which is shared by many democratic countries, specially in Europe. Where I come from, they were elaborated practically by the same people. The interpretation of what is "right" and "wrong" in those matters differs even among democracies. The US INTERPRETATION of somme common values like freedom of expression, differs in different countries, but IS NOT UNIVERSAL. YOUR interpretation is NOT UNIVERSAL. You share it with some, not with others.

And disagreeing with your standpoint doesn't make me more a traitor to a country I love but is not a citizen of, then it makes you a traitor to your country when you disagree with you President.

On this later, I hope we could agree

any kind of coherent argument here, tocqueville. You seem to want flag desecration to be illegal but have nothing more than, essentially, 'it's disrespectful' to grab onto. Free speech by nature is disrespectful. I find everything about Republicanism to be disrespectful to every decent human impulse. Me and fifty-million other people. So? What, now they have to shut up?

There is a difference between political disagreement and slander. There are existing laws against slander and libel. Flag desecration has not the remotest relation to either principle.

And sorry, you do have the right to say that 'all Marines are war criminals'. You have the right to embarass yourself that way and sound like an idiot that doesn't have much of a connection to reality that way. You have the right to open yourself up to ridicule and derision for such inane speech.

This kind of talk: "When you burn it, it's a virtual act of war." "you virtually "burn" somebody or a group for which it is specially important" and it's "is an attack on another part of the nation" are so over-the-top and emotionally extreme, that all I can say in response is: When you prohibit flag-burning it is a virtual act of war against America and everything it stands for. When you prohibit it you virtually burn the Constitution whose principles this country is based on. Disallowing it is an attack on the very core concepts of the United States. That is the correct interpretation of what is being 'virtually burned' in this issue.

Americans, Marines and everybody else, should be proud that their country stands for principles of dissent. We should be proud that we live in a democracy where you can burn the flag in protest. You should be able to point at a picture of Americans burning their own flag and say 'My country allows that.'

Anybody who isn't proud of that isn't proud of the principles America is built on.

you have an an interpretation of "what America stands for" and it's yours.

I might be true that I make "emotional" arguments but it is your case too. I could say that painting "burning the flag" as the ultimate expression of dissent and THEREFORE profoundly American (as an expression of personal liberty) is a personal emotional one too, but subject to interpretation.

Others have a very different opinion

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote,(Wikipedia)

The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party,

and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.

Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag (!!!!).

Rehnquist also argued that flag burning is "no essential part of any exposition of ideas" but rather "the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others."

I don't agree with the first point (bold text) : it's exactly because the flag "embodies" the sacred values of the nation that it shouldn't be burned. Actually burning the flag is burning the freedom of expression, besides burning other virtual values. When he says that "it does not represent any particular political philosophy" he is really out on a limb. According to him if the US became a monarchy, they could keep the old flag...

But he is according to me mostly right upon the rest, especially about the way most Americans look at their flag, which is the case for the citizens of all free nations when they look at their flag. And it was a part of my case... (thus limitation of freedom)

but all this doesn't make Rehnqvist to a "traitor" whatever you may think of him

I saw a recent poll that says that 80% of Americans are for an anti- desecration law. Even if those results can be discussed, it's interesting to notice that probably many have a different opinion than yours about this issue and I bet that many of them, probably a majority are not a bunch of flag waving rednecks. The 48 out of 50 states indicate that.

In my country flagburning and desecration of the national anthem are prohibited (for the reasons I quoted previously). Nobody sees it as an infrigement of freedom of expression or civil liberties. For the simple reason that the flag and the anthem are COMMON property and expression of the REPUBLIC. Those who have wanted to change or desecrate the French flag have been fascists, religious nuts or royalists. The left here has waved red flags but not burned national flags. Maybe anarchists but mostly for provocation.

Our ultimate way of dissent is not burning the flag but "burning" the President. The proud principle our nation was built upon was the burning of the Bastille because it SUPPRESSED freedom. So we are more into buildings than clothing. Nowadays it takes form of paper ballots and when it's not sufficient of mass rallies and strikes. Sometimes it even can turn violent. All French politicians are aware of that. If Bush had been French he wouldn't have lasted 8 years, specially after this year's revelations.

So the proud principle we try to live by is that "in this country we will "burn" those who desecrate our nation".

peace

We, all of us including those who would burn the flag, are the nation. And we can disrespect it all we want. I'd prefer instead to make it better, but that isn't the point. The point is the right to do it.

The issue isn't whose ox is gored either, because those who don't want to see the flag burned aren't the ox's owners any more than those doing the burning. Anti flag-burners act as if their nation is being disrespected, but it isn't their nation. It is the flag-burner's nation and they can burn their property - their belief in this country - for any reason they want to whether it offends anyone else or not.

And the ramifications of not? What is the difference between not being allowed to burn the flag and not being allowed to say 'America sucks' or 'I hate America'? There is no difference, so we might as well make them all illegal. And for that matter, 'My president sucks' since he represents the country in a democracy. And the president's policies, vetted by an elected Congress. And after that what else? No political humor disrespecting the country or its policies? Do you see where this leads?

The right to burn the flag is the representation of all of that. When you can burn the flag, you can plainly mock, ridicule or speak out against your country by definition. The right to burn the flag is symbolic of what we stand for. Everything else, every other right, like the First Amendment that flag-burning is part of - that it represents in a political context, is clearer with the right to desecrate the flag. You could in fact say that the right to burn the flag represents visually what those rights mean in a democracy.

I agree with Rehnquist on one point - that burning the flag is little more than an inarticulate expression of anger. And a not very impressive one at that. But he, like you, has very little else to base his position on other than disallowing a disrespect for something that he respects. What kind of reasoning is it that flag-burning should be illegal because it might offend someone's 'almost mystical reverence' for what they believe in? Religious cultists have an 'almost mystical reverence' for their sometimes absurd beliefs. So do believers in UFOs. I guess their 'almost mystical reverences' make them off limits to disrespect. Most people don't want to burn the bible or the koran, but it's good to know that they live in a country where all that will get you is shamed and not jail.

You and Rehnquist are both wrong about what the flag represents and what the right to burn it represents. And neither his forced respect for things he holds in 'almost mystical respect' nor your demands for things to be legally prohibitied because you might get violent if they are not, hold any water.

You are looking at this backwards. You should be proud should your country have the strength and integrity to maintain the symbolic act of flag burning. It means nothing not to burn a flag under an authoritarian regime. Think of Fascistic and Communistic cultures - they're the ones who would ban dissent, and do that symbolically by elevating the flag above the principles it is supposed to stand for. That way when you don't burn the flag it's because you have chosen not to, not because you would be in trouble if you did. What does it mean not to desecrate a flag, yours or anyone else's, because you aren't allowed to? It means nothing. It only means something when you choose not to. Those two 'not-burning' scenarios look the same on the outside, but are worlds apart in principle. One of them is a meaningless mandate. The other is a Constitutionally protected right that you get to choose to exercise or not.

And that right, again, represents a much larger set of principles.

:)

Very well said.

The approved and legal way of disposing of an American flag that's torn, worn, tattered, or soiled is to burn it. This is both tradition and law (US Code).

When a patriotic protestor claims that the political 'leadership' has "soiled" the flag, (s)he burns it. The message is that the flag has been (symbolically) soiled by the dishonorable behavior of the pResident. Thus, it was not an anti-American protest, but a patriotic protest.

on your property. you also have the right to burn your cross, on your property, unless you are doing it to intimidate others.

you do not have the right to burn my flag, or burn your flag on someone else's property. I also have the right to stop you from making such an innane political statement, unless you're on your own property.

and by the way, the flag is not the greatest symbol of the country, it is transient. You have the right to burn the Constitution, that is much more meaningful than a manufactured symbol.

expressing their political beliefs, whether you consider it 'inane' or not. It's OK for you to tear placards away from protestors that you disagree with? Where do you come up with that 'right'?

You don't have a right to curtail political speech whether it is on someone else's private property or not. I agree with most of the rest of what you say regarding whose property is burned and on whose property it is burned on, but outside of those conditions you overstep your authority when you take possession of their rights because you disagree with their expression.

The state could restrict burning on public property in general terms -not the flag specifically - if they can make a case around such action as a public safety hazard. That's as far as their right goes; yours and mine stop quite a bit short of that.

I have the right to stop you by using ridicule and laughter. And as soon as you put the flag down, in the public square, especially if it's on fire, I have the right, nay, the obligation, to put out that fire. As long as you are holding the flag, it's yours, and you can do whatever you want with it. Put it down, and you abandon it. legally, the same way you abandon a burning car.

if by 'stop' you mean ridicule and laughter. That isn't really the definition of stop.

And I'm not sure about putting out the burning flag on the ground. That's part of the expression. If someone puts down their placard, do you have a right to destroy it as 'abandoned'? I don't think so, any more than someone stepping out of their car for five seconds means it's abandoned and you can claim it. It's not yours - they paid for it and whether it's on fire or not doesn't make it yours.

Besides, even if you doused their burning flag they'd probably just do something like start to wipe their feet on it or something else equally provocative.

The bigger problem here is that you seem to think that burning the American flag is somehow unacceptable. You're wrong.

you can wipe your ass with the American Flag, for all I care, it's a piece of cloth. shred it and use it to line your gerbil cage, who cares? but as a form of political protest, it's simply not interesting. All it does is piss people off. Why bother?

So if you own the flag, and the property you are on, light up. But if you can do it in the public square, then I can burn a cross in the public square, and you can't stop me. Not that I want to, but I could. In fact, if you can burn a flag on a street, I can burn a cross in front of the synagogue down the street, and you can't stop me. You just said so yourself. Cuts both ways, you know?

read post #18 for that comparison.

that exempts it from hate speech? As far as I'm concerned, cross burning is a religious issue, therefore protected by the First Amendment. Would this apply to all flags, or just Old Glory? what if I burn it in front of a VFW hall? that is certainly intimidation, it may be protected speech, but it's certainly directed at a class of people. where's your line?

I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn for specific other scenarios. I imagine like most things it would be contingent on the circumstances. The kind of thing where a legal decision, either before or after, would have to be made.

I guess I'd break it down like this:

- Burning the flag, as a disassociated act not in front of say another person's house, is an act of pure political speech for all the reasons I've been stating. It represents fundamental American principles of political dissent and free speech.

- Burning the flag is an act from within the group. Flag-burners are burning their own flag - it is theirs to burn.

As to other scenarios:

- Disrespecting your own (country, race, ethnicity, religion) is different than disrespecting someone else's. You know how big that difference is from something as common as say ethnic remarks about your own group versus others. There's alot of leeway when it's your own, as is the case with flag-burning.

- Burning a representation of another group, or similarly burning something in front of another group's institution, can be seen as a threat, ie an assault, against that someone else. It is targetting another. I would say that would apply to a cross or even a flag. You don't get to threaten synagogues or black churches or even just churches that way. The intent goes beyond an expression of free speech.

Those are probably the two endpoints. You can slap yourself silly, or even punch yourself. When you punch someone else, and that's not the same as offending someone else because you punch yourself, that's different.

In between you might have questions like, can someone from a church get a permit to burn a cross across from their own church because, say, their church's tolerance of pedophelia so deeply violates them. Same with a VFW member and their own VFW, maybe for supporting policies that cut medical benefits for veterans. I don't know. Like I said, threatening others is assault, not a political statement, so it would depend on how 'other' it is and how much of a threat it represents. Probably for a judge to decide.

I do know that burning the flag in a normal non-assault context is a political statement, properly protected as the Constitutional right of free speech and political dissent.

I do know that burning the flag in a normal non-assault context is a political statement, properly protected as the Constitutional right of free speech and political dissent. well obviously, as long as no other crime is being committed.

:eyes:

yes, before you destroy property, I suggest you own that property.

and i don't care what symbol is burned, it's just an object, not a soldier or innocent iraqi being burned.

Throw it back in their faces and demand to hear their plan. How illegal should it be? Is it a death offense where they kill your family, run off your livestock and salt your land?

Is it just burning? Can you dip the thing into acid?

It's a ridiculous issue, and letting raving primitives make it illegal isn't going to hurt anything; standing up for the sacred right to burn it is going to bring endless damage to the cause of pluralism from the legions of idiots in this country. It's a waste of time.

that are more American than the right to burn the flag. That doesn't change the fact that it is constitutionally protected free speech. In order to deny that right to the tiny, absolutely insignificant number of citizens who attempt to express themselves by burning the flag, one would need to put at risk all of those other thousands of more important, more American things.

that are more American than burning a flag. But there is nothing that is more American than the right to burn the flag. That right is the purest representation of the fundamental principles of free speech and dissent.

It's not about the insignificant number of citizens who want to burn a flag. They may be idiots, but it's not about them. It's about the right to do it and what it means. The 'Patriot' Act and American torture 'affect' an insignificant number of citizens too, but they say worlds about what America stands for.

there are thousands of things that are more of a right than the right to burn a flag. It is a minor, absolutely insignificant thing, until it is denied. But there are thousands of more important rights in America. And it surely is about the people who want to burn flags, though not exclusively.

a rash of flag burning incidents? I mean, when the heck was the last time somebody burned the flag in the U.S.?? C'mon - aren't there other things to worry about?

and a sure sign of fascism . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5523137&mesg_id=5526409

:thumbsup:

And then the extreme left wonders why most Americans don't do anything but jeer at their platform.....

I will forget my freedoms and intellectual thought to justify the transformation of your american reality. Where words and truths are ambiguous that make you stand for
what you stand for. I join you, you win.

"I will forget my freedoms and intellectual thought to justify the transformation of your american reality."
Hope you know what that means....I sure can't make hide nor hair of it.

Nationalism is a fools endeavour. Ultimately the only "nation" we belong to is that the Earth. Everything else is just a manufactured farce.

AS a tool, you are right, flag burning is not very effective but that does not mean it should be against the law.

I saw a group of veterans burn the flag one time just to make the point that the symbolized stands before the symbol, not behind it.

"Everything else is just a manufactured farce."
So since YOU'RE saying the Constitution is a manufactured farce, why shouldn't it be illegal to to burn the flag if that's what America wants?

is that your claim?

Well, at one time "America" wanted slavery too.

When slavery became an election issue, the anti-slavery side won...which led to secession. It was in the history books.

Of course, I hope you're not doing anything as silly as trying to pretend that being unable to burn an American flag is like being stripped of your personhood and rights and sold into bondage.....

Someone had to stand up and say no.

I know you are anti-freedom but don't expect the rest of us to hop in bed with the likes of Jerry Falwell etc. just because Hillary wants to score a few brownie points with the whackos.

"Someone had to stand up and say no."
And here you are berating Hillary for doing just that.

I'll stay right here on the side of freedom.
The flag "issue" is just red meat for morons.

Yeah, you and crazy malignant old John Brown....

as you claim, how is it wrong to address the flag issue?

Looks like you are the one that is against the constitution.

Nations are manufactured but humanity is real. The only difference between a Canadian and an American is place of birth. If you have reading comprehension problems go back and read what I said 3 times and repeat it to yourself. It might help you with your problem.

Now given the fact that you are against free speech and support the same stances as people like Jerry Falwell, how do you justify your phoney concern over the constitution?

on edit: btw, I love the double post. I'm sure you typed the first one out of a fit of rage and then had to come back and type the second one after you came up with something a little more "witty". Thanks for the laughs. I've got to go meet some friends now. C-ya.

why have it?

"If you have reading comprehension problems go back and read what I said 3 times and repeat it to yourself"
Ahem...

"Ultimately the only "nation" we belong to is that the Earth. Everything else is just a manufactured farce."

"Ultimately the only "nation" we belong to is that the Earth. Everything else is just a manufactured farce."

"Ultimately the only "nation" we belong to is that the Earth. Everything else is just a manufactured farce."
Nope, your post still doesn't make a lick of sense.

In the context of the statement it is clear that I am referring to nationalism and reactionary bans on free speech, such as a ban on flag burning. If you cannot comprehend what you read you need to go find some professional help.

Let's see here:
You support the fascist Patriot Act.
You support abolishing free speech.
You support war mongering.

Honestly, I don't know why you are here.

Just putting another level of bricks on the wall.

I find it hilarious that the same people who never miss a chance to point out how much they hate the values and outlook of average Americans, can't figure out why average Americans pay no attention to their message.

... in public, or on government property, nor burn any other material for that matter, since burning things causes a fire hazard. I mean, that's just common sense.

Of course, that has nothing to do with free speech.

:D

And, that goes for burning stripey pieces of cloth.