I agree. The first thing I thought when the islamic Thinkers Society video of the Flag desecration was: "Glad they come out in public - glad there's video cameras"

Charles,
Hate to admit it, but I agree.
Don't force them to hide their stupidity.

I totally agree. Bad, bad idea.

More free speech, not less. Always the best policy, for so many reasons.

100% Correct.

cuz they looked silly...

I second that. Uh uh, this should never have passed in the House. Bad move.

We all benefit when people who publicly burn the US flag reveal themselves and their agendae.

Can't argue with that.

I agree but I must add that the ban would be a slippery slope. Would it end with a midnight knock on the door? I WOULD NEVER burn the flag. BUT I want the right to do so.

This probably the first time I have agreed with a post on this website in a looong time.

I'm not an American citizen, but if I were, I'd agree with Charles on this one.

Let the light of day shine upon the cockroaches.

I do WISH I were an American citizen.

#1 LSD

I agree with Charles and with you. This is not even sensible at a time when so many things need attention in Congress, and recess is near...a Constitutional Convention for this? Ridiculous.

They make assholes out of themselves whenever they burn a flag, but at least it's not a person they are setting fire to..and these cretins will be the first to hide behind our flag to protect themselves, miserable hypocrites that they are.

In the late 1980's this issue was making the rounds in Washington and someone, maybe Dennis Miller, said:
I believe the flag should be made out of asbestos so that it won't burn and anyone who wraps himself in the flag will contract asbestos poisoning.

Agree.

Burning American flags might be acceptable IF used to start afire cartloads of Korans as a protest against U.S. P.C. policies

I have mixed emotions on this one, I certainly agree for the most part what you all have said, on the other hand I also don't see the problem with having National Emblems being protected from so called speech. I know I am in the minority here when I say I don't consider burning something free speech.

well if they really wanted to insult us they could burn the constitution. as for flag burning i thought that was settled back in the 80's and 90's

I know I am in the minority here when I say I don't consider burning something free speech.

Freedom of Expression

What we need is up or down votes on all the judges and on Bolton. I hope Bush knows to push the "recess appointment" button and hard.

Thanks. I agree also. Bad idea. They do have a right the express their asinine ideas as I have a right to call them jack-asses. But if they do not speak, I will not know whom to call a jack-ass. If they did not express their ideas they would still have them in their heads.

Can we instead pass a law allowing a 60 minute "no assault charge" window for those who beat a flag burner?

They can burn it all they want, but if they get beaten beacause of it, then too bad for them.

#9 Psyduck

This probably the first time I have agreed with a post on this website in a looong time.

Yes, I agree you.

After all, stupidity is a Constitutional right, as long as you don't burn someone else in the process, or damage their knuckles when you slam your nose into same...

This is painful to say, but...I agree with Hillary. What we need is for the idjits that decide to burn the flag to be revealed to all as idjits. In my opinion, if you hate the country enough to burn its symbol, its very nature, then why the hell are you staying? It's not up to me, though; I don't run the place (thank God).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, as unfortunate as it is that people feel a need to desecrate the ideals of the country, we have to allow them to do so, so as to identify them and ignore them.

I propose a system of laser satellites that automatically detect and fry any flag burners. Certainly, laser frying a two block radius is more moral that a 40 kT nuke. (All this is outside CONUS of course--inside, it is protected free speech).

/OK, this is sarcasm. Somewhat.

I am totally against this. Burning the flag is at the core of protected political expression, and should remain so.

I'm a lawyer, and frankly, I've never understood how this was so close (5-4) at the Supreme Court.

If this ever makes it into the constitution, I'll be in front of a courthouse burning one that day. The only good reason to burn our flag is if they tell you you can't.

Too many men have died for this Country beneath that flag. I hope it passes. There are plenty of other things that the moonbats do to expose themselves. We don't have to have this as well.

I take that back. Let's make beating the snot out of a flag burner a federal offense. Let's set the fine at $1.00 plus court costs.

Flag burning shouldn't be illegal, anymore than Koran desecration is. It is just a symbol. (The flag of our freedom, and the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands over the last 230 years, the Koran of a twisted pedophile who had a violent streak and thought that his god gave him permission to do whatever he felt like).

Pretty much by definition, anyone who burns a flag is pronouncing their hatred for the US, but they have that right.

But they'd better not try to burn the flag in Houston. At least until it rains and they lift the burn/fightworks ban. (BBQ is still permitted, as is professional fireworks displays).

#17 Psyduck

My Constitution Amendment I, doesn't contain the word expression.

27 not neo,

They've died so that we may be free, which includes the freedom to burn the flag.

#26 adavies42

If this ever makes it into the constitution, I'll be in front of a courthouse burning one that day.

That's your right. You'd better hope I don't catch you at it though.

solomonpanting,

Well, Ill bite. WTF was that post trying to attack me with? Your perception that I can't spell or formulate articulate sentences?

I didn't get it. I guess ignorance is bliss.

#30 Abu Maven

They've died so that we may be free, which includes the freedom to burn the flag.

Maybe so. They're showing damned little gratitude if you ask me.

I cannot agree. I think there are some lines that must be drawn.

Free speech is SAYING "I hate America." Free speech is vocally promoting an alternative idea. Free speech is openly disagreeing with the powers that be or "received wisdom."

Nobody in this country is stopping free speech --- except the ones who say you cannot criticize islam.

Protecting the flag is protecting the symbol of our country, the greatest country on earth. It is respecting the men and women who have died for this country and for that flag. It is taking pride in what America is and who Americans are and what we do and give to the world.

For much of the world, for millions of oppressed people, America is the last and best hope.

And that flag is the symbol of all that and more.

I agree completely, also. Now, I ask all my liberal friends to join in working to abolish speech codes they have imposed on the work place and universities.

#35 nonic

Amen

I see the burning of the American flag as falling under the "fightiing words" words exception to the 1st Amendment. If you have the right to express yourself by advocating the destruction of my country, then I have the right to express myself by performing a blunt force rhinoplasty on you.

As the bumper sticker says, if you must burn the flag, please wrap yourself in it first...

Part of the bill is that you cannot desecrate the flag or make profit from it. It seems that would damage the wardrobes of many posters here, and absolutely ruin your get togethers. That is if it was considered desecration.

I always look to those who started this "Great Experiment" of self-rule. The biggest champion of free speech has this to say about the flag.

You guys are gonna find that very few of us Veterans have any problem whatsoever with a flag burning amendment.

Agreed. Thanks for saying it, Charles.

34 not neo,

I agree. I have my flag proudly displayed on my front door.

#35 nonic

What about when we cannot touch the koran with our bare hands? This law will open up a pandoras box of political correctness.

To try and make this an Amendment to the Constitution is absurd. While I despise people who would burn the American flag, I feel that the Constitution is far more important than a piece of cloth.

Imagine a Constitutional amendment to protect the bible or the koran for that matter.

#44 Abu Maven

Thank you for that.

Yep. It's a blatant violation of the first amendment.

Protecting the flag is protecting the symbol of our country, the greatest country on earth. It is respecting the men and women who have died for this country and for that flag. It is taking pride in what America is and who Americans are and what we do and give to the world.

No, i disagree with that. The soldiers that are fighting our protecting our freedom to do things like burning a flag.

Remember this supposed to be the party of smaller government and less regulation.

"You can't take away an idiot's right to tell you he's an idiot" -Ted Nugent

:)

I guess I should be thankful that the moonbats aren't pissing on it. I guess that'd be free speech too.

This is still a long way from becoming part of the Constitution, with Senate and the States still to go.
If this does come pass, should we suggest that instead of burning the flag, the protesters might switch to beheading bald eagles?

Nonic:

Protecting the flag is protecting the symbol of our country, ... It is respecting the men and women who have died for this country and for that flag. It is taking pride in what America is and who Americans are and what we do and give to the world.

Exactly. Burning the American flag is NOT an act of speech but of arson and sedition integrated in a single act of destruction.

Don't expect our military men and women to continue to fight, kill and die for that national symbol if you lack the intellectual and moral courage to defend it here at home.

Charles,

While I agree with your point, and feel the same way about it to a degree, there is a part of me that would like to see this pass all the same.

I'm sooo tired of the flag being burned, torn, and treated like a dirty rag.

Yet, if we do this, what's next. And if the demon-crats ever do regain power, they might try to outlaw the bible, or prayer in public, or even in churches.

Difficult issue. I think I have to flip a coin.

Agree completely. In addition to the free speech argument, a law like this would be counterproductive. The public already has the good sense to dismiss anyone who burns a flag within the country as a fringe lunatic. Ban the activity, and it'll be seen as defiance of authority. Which will lead some people to ignore the bigger point.

#42 not neo just conservative

You guys are gonna find that very few of us Veterans have any problem whatsoever with a flag burning amendment.

I think you may find the split not what you think it is.

#45 Sarah D.

This law will open up a pandoras box of political correctness.

A Constitutional Amendment is much more than a law. You are more correct than you know.

53 Bruce

Don't expect our military men and women to continue to fight, kill and die for that national symbol if you lack the intellectual and moral courage to defend it here at home.

Actually, I think we defend it by allowing it to be burned.

Let me ask everyone here a serious question. As a metter of free speech, is it OK to go to a veterans hospital and spit on a 19 year old Marine with both his legs blown off? If it is not OK to spit on that Marine, then it is not OK to burn that flag.

There is an upside to flag-burning. Remember that episode a couple of years ago, when the [bigoted word] somewhere in the Middle East was trying to burn a U.S. flag and accidently set himself on fire?

The photo of him running through the crowd with flames all over him was the funniest thing I had seen in years.

I'm with you, Charles.

The law should be altered in this manner:

Flag burning is a legal form of protest, but anyone who wishes to burn a flag must 1) use a nylon flag; and 2) wrap it around themselves before igniting it.

Why? Because nylon melts before it burns!

#33 Psyduck

I guess ignorance is bliss.

Now, this is probably a post of yours that I have agreed with in a looong time, maybe ever.
And from your #40 post, an even loooger time.

#39 CTP
I was going to say that and decided not to post! I am in the minority here too. I never understood how flag burning is protected speech. I guess I should haul my butt to the library and read what the justices said to get a clearer picture.

Maybe if I think in terms of koran-flushing (which is probably become an art form among some folks) it will make more sense. I feel free to rip up a koran, and no one can tell me I can't. But a flag? That to me is different. Maybe because it is my flag.

59 not neo,

Neither act is ok in my book. That said, neither should be illegal (putting aside that spitting on someone could be considered an "assault").

Oh and because Hillary opposes it, I guess I would support it. That is another good reason for me.

The Bruce: "Don't expect our military men and women to continue to fight, kill and die for that national symbol if you lack the intellectual and moral courage to defend it here at home."

Abu Maven: "Actually, I think we defend it by allowing it to be burned."
---
Why?

#53

Don't expect our military men and women to continue to fight, kill and die for that national symbol if you lack the intellectual and moral courage to defend it here at home.

If you think that our men and women in uniform won't fight because of of some idiot whose behavior is approved of by less than 1% of the country, then you hold them in lower regard than I.

Those men and women aren't fighting, killing, and dying for a symbol. They're doing it for the country and the values that the symbol represents. And we trample on one of those values by passing a flag burning amendment.

Open a Pandora's Box of PC? I think we've already walked that plank. Tell a dirty joke in the office and see what happens...

OT

In the "What lovely people department"

Palestinians try to prevent police from charging against students during riots that erupted after about 100 students, angry that their physics final exam was too difficult, attacked the education department in the West Bank city of Hebron

Funny how the symbol of nationhood is being pumped up while the elites on both sides of the political aisle are working to dismantle America's sovereignty through open borders, unfettered immigration, outsourcing and transnational trade deals like CAFTA.

I would rather the Congress concentrate on preserving America as a genuine nation-state rather than creating a big deal out of a symbol, albeit a very important one.

Rep. Tom Tancredo has noted many times that a lot of his colleagues in Congress are big flag wavers on patriotic holidays, but that's just for show; many are globalists who believe that the nation-state is too cumbersome to address the needs of modern commerce.

The Colorado Republican, who chairs the House Immigration Reform Caucus, is hoping that many of the "open borders" advocates will be defeated in November. He says some members of Congress appear to be committed to the elimination of borders altogether - people who aspire to a world that is not "encumbered with things like nation-states and loyalties and patriotism, and stuff like that... They think that's where we've got to go, and that we can handle terrorism once we get there."

Tancredo quote

Well, I guess I am in the minority point of view on this post. My mind keeps going to the movies and documentaries of battle fields and soldiers on the front line carrying that banner that means so much to me. Maybe an amendment is not the perfect resolution, but those that are disturbed by the mutilation of the flag have little other recourse.

It is a question of property rights - if you own that flag, if you want to be a moron and an anti-American fuckwit, you have the right to.

The President is also a symbol of our country, but I don't see anyone proposing a Constitutional amendment to outlaw burning him in effigy.

This kind of coercive patriotism gives me the creeps.

#65 Abu Maven

It's a matter of principal, Abu. I guarantee you that I'll be arrested for assault if I ever see someone mistreat our flag like that. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, your first amendment rights are limited by common sense, you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It is a sad state of affairs that we should even have to consider an amendment like this.

In any event, if the majority thinks its okay to burn it, so beit... I'm not like a certain party that has a fit when they aren't the majority.

I do also agree that making it illegal to burn the flag once again would indeed open the door for political correctness in todays environment. The SCOTUS should have never made it legal to do so in the first place..

If you outlaw burning flags..only outlaws will have burning flags. However.. it's all in the ability to enforce..a few can be arrested.. but when the LLL or the right for that matter want to make a point burning flags..ours or someone else's they can organize thousands,., and all do it making arrest impractical, if not impossible. Best is to just point out their 'free speech" is a attack on the world's only true symbol of freedom.

Let me ask everyone here a serious question. As a metter of free speech, is it OK to go to a veterans hospital and spit on a 19 year old Marine with both his legs blown off? If it is not OK to spit on that Marine, then it is not OK to burn that flag.

You are trying to connect two ends of a football field together with that one.

Spitting on someone is assult, not an act of free speech. It might be legal to tell the soldier something, but not spit on them.

Try again.

Flag burning is not arson, unless it damages a larger structure. How in the hell is an old flag supposed to be disposed of, I suppose? So when someone burns an old flag to see it off they are committing a crime?

#74

I don't have any problem with people burning pictures of flags...

Psyduck

What is your position on hate speech laws?

#73 neverborn
That makes the most sense to me. Why the feds have to get involved is beyond me. Why can't it be a local by local, or state by state issue?

And yes, this has a long way to go.

Yep. Let them show what idiots they really are.

Then we can laugh at them.

#78 Psyduck

You know that respectful disposal of the flag is not what is being discussed here, and you understand the point I was trying to make.

By the way, the last I checked, spitting on someone is not assault unless you have a contagious disease.

75 not neo just conservative

Then you would be the one in the wrong morally for being arrested for initiation of force. Sorry to hear.

I see another GOP campaign ad coming:

Moonbats burn an American flag, left shills defend Moonbats.
Mohammedans demand prosecution of Koran bashers, same left shills defend Mohammedan attempt to force idolatrous dogma on majority.

We can also do this with the Ten Commandments and any number of other lefty church-state issues.
The left-lemmings are actually accelerating as they stampede toward the abyss.

And from your #40 post, an even loooger time.

Heh heh.

64 CrimsonFisted

No need to hit the library. Here is the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. Texas (1989). Here's what I think is the key point:

To conclude that the government may permit designated symbols to be used to communicate only a limited set of messages would be to enter territory having no discernible or defensible boundaries. Could the government, on this theory, prohibit the burning of state flags? Of copies of the Presidential seal? Of the Constitution? In evaluating these choices under the First Amendment, how would we decide which symbols were sufficiently special to warrant this unique status? To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do. See Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S., at 466 -467.

[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]

So, uh, you agree with me then Rayra?

Well, I like this TJ quote, too...

Hey look we are having debate and noone is crying on the floor of the Senate!

hehehe

#59 neo

I'm a vetern too and I think I understand how you feel but I beleive in freedom of speech, even symbolic speech by idiots. But there's a world of difference between burning a flag and spitting on a crippled soldier. I'd fight the spitter and I'd turn my back on the flag burner.

#86 neverborn

Then you would be the one in the wrong morally for being arrested for initiation of force. Sorry to hear.

Well I'm sorry about that. I was taught in the Marine Corps to protect and defend the flag of the United States, to never let it hit the ground or to fall into the hands of my enemies. Unfortunately, I cannot go around taking flags away from people, but I draw the line at standing aside while that flag is abused.

Charles - I agree that the flag burning amendment is a REALLY BAD idea, but not because it reveals who those people are (although that is a side benefit), but because burning the flag IS a valid expression of free speech.
The fact that burning the flag arouses so much emotion simply means that it's a very effective expression of free speech.
Having said that, I would certainly hope that no one burns the flag around me; I'm too old to go jail for assault and/or manslaughter.
And no, I don't care if that makes me a hypocrite.

I think it's naive to expect that such a law would actually reduce flag burning. It'd have just the opposite effect, I'm quite sure of it.

Morons who burn the flag tend to set their arms on fire at the same time. Please do not take away my right to witness such tragedy and comedy.

#53 The Bruce

Don't expect our military men and women to continue to fight, kill and die for that national symbol if you lack the intellectual and moral courage to defend it here at home.

I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Where exactly is the flag mentioned in this oath?

Look, As I said, I despise flag burners. But my oath never said I had to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States " unless I disagree with their choice of speech.

We don't fight for a symbol, we fight for the country. I don't need a piece of cloth to tell me that.

What is your position on hate speech laws?

CTP,

I am strongly against them. I think our forefathers meant what they said about Free Speech, any free speech. If you are bleeting on with racial slurs you are a racist not a criminal, better to identify yourself early.

I dont agree with media cencorship, and I definitely think that if you are a racist or biggot it is your problem but it is not the right of the government to take away your ability to say whatever you want.

I've always been against anti-flag-burning legislation.

What's next, anti-Koran-burning legislation?

Not neo

That is putting into words what I was trying to convey. That flag is protected at all times and that was my point.

#90 Abu
Thank you very much! It makes a difference to read why the justices make the decisions they do.

Flag-burners are really media cult extremists, taking the common advertising trope of "conformity as rebellion" to its legal limit.

Joseph Johnston, the punk who instigated a famous flag-burning case in the 80s, once said that he spent his spare time playing basketball and listening to "subversive rap-music."

Outlawing desecration of symbols is like eating potato chips, 'cause it's hard to stop at one. One day you might see moonbats outlawing the destruction of BOOKS LIKE THE KORAN. We need to stick to the Constitution and avoid changes that leave openings for abuse by King Soros and Queen Moore.

How about this Thomas Jefferson quote:

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

Remember Rick Monday?

Bob24:

Those men and women aren't fighting, killing, and dying for a symbol. They're doing it for the country and the values that the symbol represents. And we trample on one of those values by passing a flag burning amendment.

To state this during a world war only demonstrates what a fool you are.

Anyone for cross burning? How about book burning?

Can we make our flags out of some VEEERy explosive material that goes Flash-Bang in the face of whomever tries to ignite it?

#101 Psyduck

I'll agree with that. What about "offensive" workplace or classroom environs?

Expanding on the excerpt from Texas v. Johnson I posted in #90, I think the key point is: how can we decide which symbols are sufficiently "sacred" that they should be deemed "off limits"? If we criminalize flag burning, will we criminalize Koran burning next? It's a slippey slope.

It would be very easy to argue that the flag is merely a symbol of government, whereas the Koran is a symbol of God.

I agree. If they make it illegal to protest by torching a flag, what will be next? Being thrown in jail for tearing up a koran?

#95 Rayra

You actually took the time to dig up something that I wrote months ago? I don't think I could ever bother to do the same for an intellectual pygmy like you.

Btw, I see that you didn't make any attempt to refute my point, which others here have also made. Since refuting it would take more than three working brain cells to do, I'm not surprised.

Nice try, moron. It is an issue of RESPECT. That you either don't see that, or deliberate try to place the two cases as equivalent tells me all I care to know about you. Go to hell.

Can you legislate respect? If you could you would be locked in a federal penitentiary.

Look, I dont burn flags, but it is a legitimate expression of free speech. Not a respectful one, but then again neither is Larry Flynts practice. He is still able to do it.

So if this passes, will it be for just the current flag?

What about 48 star flags or 13 star flags?

What if it's a "fake" flag with 14 stripes, will you go to jail for burning that?

The whole thing is stupid. It's like outlawing pipes and expecting people to stop smoking.

Maybe the Solomonic solution here is to relax the laws for simple assault, if committed in the presence of flag-burning.

Just kidding. I think.

I'm not totally convinced that we need an Amendment to the Constitution. I agree with Charles that by not making it illegal, it makes that much easier to pick out the unpatriotic. But I see no problem sending this to the states and let them decide. My main complaint about the Left is that they don't want anyone to decide by a ballot; they want it decided by the courts. This country was founded on democratic principals. Let this go to the states to be decided.

Charles has a point, I read some of the left wingers who think it's okay to outlaw Koran desecration but not flag buring. Personally, I'd like to see only Korans burning.

Amy,]

that is not IN the constitution, so why do you lift it that high?

"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the
high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The
laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country
when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country
by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law
itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are
enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the
means." --Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810.

102 Perelanda

What's next, anti-Koran-burning legislation?

Only if the Dems get their wish and only for our soldiers.

#92 Ann - you can't go wrong quoting TJ!

#100 reaganite

We don't fight for a symbol, we fight for the country. I don't need a piece of cloth to tell me that.

That's funny. You can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for desecrating the flag.

Amen Charles!

What really hacks me off is there have got to be more pressing matters before Congress besides this crap. Let the folks in the street take care of the flag burners. Why don't y'all try to fix these budget problems instead?

96 not neo just conservative

I respect the Marines and the job you do. However, beating someone up for a political belief or expression, as WRONG and IDIOTIC as their belief/expression is, if they aren't infringing on anyone's rights -- you can not morally or legally infringe on theirs and initiate force.

Charles I think this is a incendiary topic.

#128 jlfintx

It is for me.

Me too. I can't divide the way I feel about the flag and what it represents from what I feel about those that are allowed to desecrate it.

118

We can't send the issue to the states. The Supreme Court has ruled that any law preventing flag burning is unconstitutional. Absent a constitutional amendment (or Supreme Ct reversal), that will remain the law of the land.

I'll agree with that. What about "offensive" workplace or classroom environs?

Well I dont know what you mean with that, but like I said, if you want to go to your school and bleet on saying racist, negative and slanderous things, it is your right.

If no one signs up for your class because they hate you through the grapevine the school has the right to fire you.

Part of the reason kids dont learn shit these days is that they have all of the power in the classroom. PC has killed the class room, and I hate it. I went to an art school so you can imagine how miserable I was there.

I drew pornography one day and a teacher tried to censor me. I was proving a point that some left leaners are so hyper critical of PC they are in fact limiting free speech in other way. Its especially dangerous in an artistic environment.

I was quite serious when I suggested a while back that we can respond to flag-burning by desecrating various lefty icons in response. For example, when they burn a flag at one of their choreographed guerrilla-theater presentations, loyalist counter-demonstrators could unroll a giant banner of Che Guevara and put it to the torch.

We can reduce the Moonbats to an absurd caricature by smashing bongs, burning Mumia shirts and Birkenstocks, and otherwise destroying the stereotyped paraphernalia of this sub-culture. This would imply that these items have the same status for left-conformists that the flag does for us.

jlfintx #120

Umm... Maybe because ol' TJ had a bit of a hand in writing the Constitution, so his interpretation of freedom of religion is kinda sorta relevant. I is to me, anyway.

And if you think that mixing religion with state affairs is a good idea, look at what's going on at the Air Force Academy - non-evangelical Christians are being persecuted and discriminated against, and Jews are being called Christ-killers.

No thank you.

Some folks would apparently throw out the constitution (first ammendment) in order to try (unsuccessfully) to defend the flag. I understand their distaste for flag-burners, but that doesn't make it OK.

I despise flag burners but I can put up with flag burning, I can't put up with curtailment of free speech. We have far too many speech codes and hate crime laws already.

100 reaganite -

"Look, As I said, I despise flag burners. But my oath never said I had to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States " unless I disagree with their choice of speech.

We don't fight for a symbol, we fight for the country. I don't need a piece of cloth to tell me that."

Yup.

Here's a funny suggestion from The Therapist on the subject.

#132 Psyduck

Suppose I want to sit at my desk and thumb through a Playboy or Maxim magazine.

Or, suppose I'm telling people in the office who want to hear it a dirty joke but somebody overhears it and is offended.

Issues like that.

117 Charles

I agree with that completely.

#124 not neo just conservative

That's funny. You can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for desecrating the flag.

Since when did the military have the same rights as a civilian?

The military loses certain rights because it can't operate any other way.

And if any military person desecrated the flag in front of me they would be prosecuted.

That does not equate to a Constitutional Amendment.

Bad move by the House. Flag burning is outrageous but it is political speech. Criminalizing this paves the way to other tyrannies. I won't support it and tend to think of myself as conservative. I think most fairminded Americans are repulsed by flag burning but won't put our government in the business of incarcerating those that do it.

Also, the House and the Senate GOP, if they support it, will look ridiculous. They can't get Bolton up for a vote, they enter into a craven compromise just to get the Senate Dems to do their Constitutional duty and consider a few judicial appointments, and they wait days before summoning up the courage to condemn Durbin's actually traitorous speech.

They can push a flag burning amendment, but are spineless when it comes to pushing the issues that really count.

#107 Amy

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

I think what some may be saying is even though TJ made this observation, it is not in the Constitution.

Sort of Related:

I just heard on the radio Congressman Coyners lambasting this proposed amendment saying it would limit free speech. Of course, to Coyners, outlawing the "desecration" of the Koran is not a limit of free speech. This man is unpatriotic and nothing less than a traitor.

Amy, I see you are probably just another Christian hater yourself and have bought into the talking points of said haters. No thanks, nothing to say to you further.

#137 realwest

Yup.

Thanks brother.

I think flag burning is a deliberate act of disrespect and disdain for the country and the people who serve to keep her free.
But if we start defining what free speech is by
limiting protest we're going to see the enemy take that inch and turn it into a mile.

Freedom of expression was intended to be the right to free speech. Parades and Artwork and Burning things weren't recognized a "Speech" or protected first amendment rights until fairly recently in our history.

#123 realwest

you can't go wrong quoting TJ!

I have read so much... hey! How about we all meet in Charlottesville while Shorty has this free time?!

Our Flag. Our borders. Defend both.

OK I am about to say something a little controversial (putting on asbestos underwear).

If this country ever gets to the point where that flag represents a socialist, communist or totalitarian regime I would burn it too.

Oh, another thing Amy, although he put the pen to the document, maybe you should read your history a little more to see whose thoughts he was putting to paper.

If this amendment passed, the MSM would just go abroad and grab footage of the U.S. flag being burned in Paris, London, Cairo, etc. and broadcast that.

solomonpanting #143 -

I don't subscribe to the literalism school of Constitutional interpretation. If TJ himself interpreted the First Amendment this way, that's plenty good enough for me. And I have never read anywhere that any of the other Founding Fathers interpreted it differently. The consensus clearly was that the Church and the State should not become entangled in each other's affairs. This country has never had an "official" religion, and it shouldn't start having one now.

Goodnight all. I don't have the enrgy for this tonight. Think about what I said a minute ago. When was it that actions became defined as speech?

Ay, I know the slippery slope arg doesn't appeal but next law to follow is you can't burn a koran.

#73 neverborn is right. This is not an issue of free speech, it is an issue of property rights. If you buy a flag, it is your property to do with as you please, as long as you don't hurt someone with it. And the prohibition on hurting someone does not include hurting their feelings. Let the assholes burn their flags; be offended as hell, but remember that we live in the United States of America, where we enjoy the freedom to be offensive, not in some shit-hole Islamic nation where they will lynch you in an instant for touching their precious Koran the wrong way.

Absolutely right Charles. I love my country enough that I can withstand the sight of those who would burn my flag.

Remember, always more freedom, never less. Let the ugly Kossacks show their true faces.

Suppose I want to sit at my desk and thumb through a Playboy or Maxim magazine.

CTP,

You had the right to buy it you should have the right to reead it where you choose. Those offended can pull their kids out of the school or just ignore it.

Or, suppose I'm telling people in the office who want to hear it a dirty joke but somebody overhears it and is offended.

I dont even think you should be fired if you called a black guy a n***** to his face in the office while in the middle of telling a faggot joke. you might get punched in the face by your co worker, but you have a gauranteed right to say it.

I dont even agree with the FCC intrusion into the media. Turn off the TV, if you dont like the program, dont buy Eminems LP if you dont like the language.

I dont need a legislative nanny telling me what I can and cannot hear, and as it pertains to children, dont have them if you cannot parent them. Dont leave it to Capitol Hill to protect your child for you.

Clear it up?

Thomas Jeffersons remark that is the push to rid our governance of all mention of G-d is not in the constitution nor in the Bill of Rights.
That statement was taken from a private communication. If he meant for it to be in the Constitution I'm sure it would have been written so.

Well, this would be a fun one to decide in the courts.

Suppose you burned a red-and-white striped cloth (8 red, 7 white). And at the same time you burned a blue cloth with 49 white stars.

And the two were juxtapositioned. Would you get off, or would you be jailed?

Suppose you burned a flag from a previous error? Jail or free?

Suppose you burned a cloth with blue and white stripes and red field with white stars? Jail or free?

Suppose the stripes were of different widths? Or they ran vertically?

Suppose you burned the Malaysian flag? Liberia? Confederacy?

Suppose you send a flag in an envelope & it got dirty/destroyed in transit?

Suppose you had 300 people wearing baseball caps in red, white, and blue forming a living flag. When they disassociate, are they committing a crime?

The mind reels...

jlfintx #145 -

Oh, so now I'm a "Christian hater" because I don't want to have an official state religion rammed down my throat?

You're an ignorant moron. I hope your statement that you have nothing more to say to me is a promise.

#159 psyduck

All clear! I think along the same lines...

@159

That was uncalled for. And you're quite wrong.
Pornography gets people censured, repremanded and fired, as well as the kind of questionable remarks you just posted on Charles' blog.

No time to read all the comments...

Just want to put in my .02 and say although I loathe people who burn the flag of the United States, I don't want to see it made into a crime.

Rather than add an specious amendment to the Constitution, how about passing legislation requiring classes on the Flag (History and Respect)be taught in our schools. Or requiring all students to see the movies "Gods and Generals" and "Gettysburg." It wasn't until I saw those two movies that I complete understood a soldier's devotion to the Flag and the respect that it deserves.

#25 Abu Maven

I've never understood how this was so close (5-4) at the Supreme Court.

Back in the '80's and '90's I couldn't understand how the flag lost legal protection.

Back then, I was just stepping off into adulthood and was clenching onto the belief that the bravest of our brave citizens spilled their blood to protect all of which our flag represents. I also held onto the lessons I learned as a child that certain symbols, be they religious or political, deserved respect. We didn't always have to agree with everything these symbols stood for, but that respect was earned and expected.

The flagrant disposal of this 'respect' (on a wholesale level) resulted in my rejection of the view that desecrating these symbols were merely poltical expressions protected by our constitution. . . until 9/11.
I now yield in agreement, as I can find no fault in the logic of allowing the 'idjuts' to expose their 'schtoopidity'.

It's just a damn shame that my children don't benefit from the display of respect and pride these symbols universally received.

like the fabled Pheonix,"the emblem of - the land I love - the home of the free and the brave" will forever rise from the ashes to champion the cause of freedom and requires no protection other than the character of the American people. If that character is at some future date lacking no anti-burning law will save us.

159 is deletable

"I dont even think you should be fired if you called a black guy a n*** to his face in the office while in the middle of telling a f*** joke."

If you worked for me you would already be fired. "Foul-mouthed buffoon" is not a protected category under EEOC rules.

Personally, the burning of the flag really gets my goat. But then, that's the reason why they do it, right?

I refuse to give them the satisfaction.

I'm torn, since I have family that served under the flag and took bullets for Uncle Sam.

I hate seeing the flag desecrated, especialy by nanobrained morons who can't distinguish their asses from a hole in the ground.

I also agree that they should be allowed to broadcast their vapid stupidity across the nation, even if a flag has to get burned in the process. It only helps the cause of those who support the flag.

Damn it...probably would lean to the side of let them do it - for no other reason than it makes them look like immature children who don't get their candy. More free speech and not less is certainly convincing.

I will delight, however, in watching moonbats flip out over this...

OT

New European Model does not hit Florida or Carolinas Sunday-Monday with tropical cyclone. Rather- Tropical Storm forecast to end June dry spell (.5 mm rain entire month) in time to lift Harris County burn/fireworks ban.

That would certainly be happy, but the preponderance of the models suggests otherwise.

New NAM (aka ETA) out through 51 hours (the model hasn't updated yet through tau=84 hours) shows a healthy tropical wave, with 3 hour rainfall over .25 inch (~0.6cm) moving into Florida, which maybe means we do get Gulf action.

Unless a tropical cyclone does form near the Western Gulf and hits Houston, it would be better for my garden if nothing forms at all, as a cyclone would try to head north into the westerlies and pull dry air into Texas, while a healthy wave would cruise west all the way across the Gulf and rain on my lemon tree, my orange tree and my 2 Washingtonia Robustas.

The tau=54 hour is in. 1010 mb low just west of Punta Gorda.

60 hours! Disturbance drifting northwest Saturday. A threat to the Redneck Riviera?

Well, almost bed time, and when I wake up, the 06Z model runs will come in, and I'll play with the pretty colors, maybe even background colors, flashing borders, who knows.

Just saw the 66 hour NAM. Not super-strong, a depression or storm, but more heavy rain this weekend east of the system in Florida, and the trend seems northwest movement towards Pensacola or Panama City Beach.

Right now, the tropical wave looking less impressive as it tangles with La Republica Dominicana and Haiti. Not surprising, in a way, the peaks of the central cordillera exceed 2000 meters, and many a mature storm has been seriously weakened crossing Hispañola.

Meanwhile, in the EastPac, Tropical Storm Beatriz may make it to hurricane force before crossing the 26^o isotherm and weakening quickly.

#171 Bob's kid

Exactly right. Mockery is the weapon we should use.

It would degrade the rule of law to apply its sanctions to these noisy brats.

#35 nonic 6/22/2005 07:25PM PDT

I agree with you. Burning our flag is NOT free speech!

I chose to fight.

Thats right, Im that guy. The one you may someday see on the evening news.

I have a right to resist. An assault on my flag is an assault on me.

Burning MY FLAG is incitement, pure and simple.

I'm a big boy. Anxious and all.

#143 solomonpanting - First Amendment to the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Don't expect our military men and women to continue to fight, kill and die for that national symbol if you lack the intellectual and moral courage to defend it here at home.

No one expects them to fight, kill or die for a symbol, Bruce. It's what that symbol represents that matters.

The wonderful thing about this country is that it does not exist for its symbols, and its soldiers swear to defend not a sovereign, a nation or a symbol, but the Constitution.

Well put, Charles.

I think some insightful (and inciteful) Congress-critter should burn a Mumia shirt on the steps of the Capitol, after summoning the media hordes to the scene and explaining its actions.

For a really spectacular demonstration, we could torch a VW bus in Berkeley. Probably violate air-quality regs though.

More free speech, not less. Always the best policy, for so many reasons.

I couldn't agree more.

Ok, I've changed my mind on this. (Earlier in the day, I said I hoped this would pass.)

I haven't read all the arguments, but I read Charles' comments up top and I've seen a few of those who agree with him on this.

I'm onboard, too.

Good call, Charles.

Freedom of Speech applies to public speech, and an employer certainly doesn't have to tolerate disruptive behavior on private property.

You are free to wear a "Bush=Hitler" t-shirt and walk down the street, your boss is free to fire you if you don't comform to reasonable company standards of dress and behavior.

Remember Rick Monday of the Dodgers? I approved. The 'flag burners' were arrested for entering the field if I'm not mistaken.

#173 Ed

When the hell is it going to rain here in the upper Midwest? Wisconsin just had its 4th driest Spring in the past 130 years.

#151 unclassifiable

(putting on asbestos underwear).

Sarah D. can now advise you about the advice she received about the proper way to deal with the side effects -:)

Okay, I have .02 right now:
I need to go to sleep, and that bothers me. This is a very important topic that needs to be discussed - rationally, with respect for each other.

It's just a wish. None of us should mandate anything, but I do think that having respect for each others' opinions is an important and noble trait for LGFers.

Unless someone is lying, stupid, or way off base, of course!

#180 Shiplord Kirel, especially depending on previous owner;-)

Charles - clean up in Aisle 159.

geezer (#168),

like the fabled Phoenix,"the emblem of - the land I love - the home of the free and the brave" will forever rise from the ashes to champion the cause of freedom and requires no protection other than the character of the American people. If that character is at some future date lacking no anti-burning law will save us.

Well said.

Yeah Charles before lone I will not be able to fill a jar with urine and dunk a crusafix calling it art!

/mode -moonbat

I'm embarrased to admit, but when I first heard about this initiative my first thought was "GOOD!". Noone should be burning our flag.

But...as often happens when I read LGF...I can't argue with the statements made here. You're right...the fact that we have the right to burn our flag (as horrible as it is to do so) is what makes our country great. (Identifying the whackjobs is good too...)

The more I read the comments posted on LGF, the dumber I feel...but the more educated I become.

Thanks!

i'm divided on this one...empassioned yet ambivalent...becasue on some level the status quo does work for me...it does show idiots for who they are...criminilizing it only affirms our disgust at this act...but then I know that they do not know the true meaning of America, they don't know our story, they don't understand our prosperity...they just don't get it...

but they *do* use it for their own gain

...interesting...

Freedom of Speech applies to public speech, and an employer certainly doesn't have to tolerate disruptive behavior on private property.

Nor should they be forced to if you said something so tiny and insignificant but it offended someone. It is the right of the employer to fire not the feds.

The government shouldnt be interfering with how people must hire and fire. Remember I am in California writing this our PC laws are absolutely insane.

And this is why I am not a Republican. Go down this path and what's next? Hate speech laws?! F#cking idiot politicians. Unfortuantely, I think most Americans are so stupid that they will probably support this measure.

# 79 Rayra

"Made up crapola?" So, is Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists a "fake but accurate" NBC forgery?

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

...

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

...

(signed) Thomas Jefferson

Jan. 1 1802

True, this is Jefferson's "interpretation" of what the amendment means, but I do think Jefferson's interpretations of the Constitution rate somewhere above "fucking made-up crapola."

I dont even think you should be fired if you called a black guy a n*gger to his face in the office while in the middle of telling a faggot joke. you might get punched in the face by your co worker, but you have a gauranteed right to say it.

.

Psyduck- you really don't understand much, do you?

It is entirely within an employers rights to fire somebody for disruptive behavior in a workplace, and I don't suppose you've ever heard that oldie but goody about shouting "movie!" in a crowded firehouse.^*

*^{Or something like that. But Psyduck is about stupid, no?}

And this from James Madison:

James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, said in an 1819 letter, "[T]he number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church and state." In an earlier, undated essay (probably early 1800s), Madison wrote, "Strongly guarded...is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."

I guess he didn't understand the Constitution, either.

#149 Ann - get together in Charlottesville?
Getting together is a great idea, but, and pardon my ignorance, but where is Charlottesville - is that near the Bronx?
;>)

#10- White Rasta

I do WISH I were an American citizen.

But, but...haven't you heard that we are an evil empire? We are a bunch of Nazi stormtroopers (arrrggghhh)...and imperialist pigs (oink, oink)! Why on earth would you want to be a part of this nightmare we call America?

That said, burning the flag should be a crime. But I don't see why we have to change the Constitution in order to protect it.

I'm always conflicted about this, because my stomach churns every time I see an American citizen set our stars and stripes on fire. But if we represent the best of the best, we resist laws against simple freedom of expression, and even allow those openly seditious or traitorous their chance to weave their own hanging ropes in our public miasma of ideas.

I want really badly to smack those people down, but I know it won't do any good to do so. That's the real estate of totalitarians and authoritarian regimes. We are better than that.

Dammit. Spit.

#183 Ed

You are correct.

What I was asking Psyduck about was the legislative angle of hostile work environments. Sure, your employer has the right to expect employees to comport to certain expectations.

But, is it correct (i.e., within the power of the government as defined in the Constitution) for the government to legislate that one can sue an employer for an employee's comments that inadvertantly offend another employee? Where is the right to not be offended buried in the Constitution?

192,

The true spirit of America is giving us the liberty to do as we please so long as we do not infringe on other individual's rights.

Protection from being offended is NOT A RIGHT.

Too bad so many on the Left (and apparently now on the Right) do not comprehend this simple principle.

196

Read 193.

Here's an interesting question for the legal minds out there:
Pepsi couldn't put up a billboard with Coke's cursive logo that said Coca-Crap.It would be defaming or defiling a symbol.
Even though it's only a symbol-wouldn't Coke be allowed to defend it's symbol.
Any chance there could be a law making it legal to defend the flag?

#177 realwest

Yes, I read that earlier in this thread. The first part

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

does, I believe, mean that Congress will not deny anyone the right to establish a religion. We have a secular government but are a religious society.
However, some would like to prohibit any mention of God everywhere in the public sphere. But, doesn't the President place his hand on a Bible upon taking the Oath of Office? I see nothing wrong with this. Also, there are Biblical passages on federal buildings. I actually find it incredible that the ACLU hasn't yet brought a suit to eliminate these 'offenses'.

I would also fire someone for believing in the damnably idiotic claim that the Moon landings were faked. Contrary to popular belief, it is legal to do so.

OTOH, I didn't fire someone once for referring to me as a "pompous tyrant with a Napoleon complex."
I just said that I was not pompous.

Wanna burn it in protest, go ahead, but if I can stop you I'll do it. But, if the flag burner is a member of our armed forces or duly elected representative of this country I think it a traitorous act rewarded by loss of citizenship.

Too bad so many on the Left (and apparently now on the Right) do not comprehend this simple principle.

202

THANK YOU!

I cant believe I am reading some of this.

And I am on the left.

Amy-

Church and State being separate is a good thing, and I think almost everyone agrees it is a good thing we don't have a "Church of America", with the US Senate having the authority to change the Book of Common Prayer.

It is possible to take it too far, IMHO. Like the ACLU forcing Los Angeles to remove a small cross from the seal. That certainly didn't establish Christianity as the religion of L.A., and considering the city was settled by Christian missionaries, a small cross could be considered part of its heritage.

I forgot, what were you and jflntx arguing about again?

bangalore #204

No, Pepsi can't do that because it would be trademark infringement, i.e., a violation of Coke's property rights, which are protected under the law.

This has nothing to do with desecration of a symbol.

@186 Ann

Spot On! I enjoy the debating too, as long as it's honest.

204,

Coke could bring suit for trademark infringement and trademark dilution, but it would likely be protected on fair use/parody grounds. The only tricky party in your example is that the parodist is a direct competitor -- that's not usually the case.

Most definitely agree with Charles on this one. Good to see who the bad "players" are. Take pretty pics of them and see where else they turn up. Also definitely slippery slope. Never thought about burning the flag. Never would. But then what else could come down the Pike to be banned, outlawed. Too much of that already.

#200 really grumpy big dog johnson -

"Dammit. Spit."

LOL! See my #97!

210 Amy,

No, as I stated above, generally that sort of thing is protected on fair use grounds. The "Mutant of Omaha" case is a leading case on point.

The only wrinkle here is that Pepsi and Coke are direct competitors, which could make things more interesting.

#210 Amy

How about assigning property rights to the US flag to every citizen- then might we be able to defend it (legally)

Not that that couldn't open up a big old can of worms- i'm just wondering

This amendment will NEVER pass the Senatorial sniffers. Nevertheless, it's Karl Rove's evil genius again... get Congress on record for who's with us or against us!

And what better way to infuriate the moonbats?

216 bangalore

Amy is mistaken. Trademark rights (a form of property rights) do not trump First Amendment rights, unless the trademark is being used in such a way so as to create a likelihood of confusion.

#205 solomonpanting, at one time all across the land church buildings substituted as public schools and vis-versa. Not a problem under the same constitution. There has been no amendment since that states no one may freely exercise their religion on public property. The reverse was the real concern. Having a state that forced an unfree exercise of a state religion. Ugh.

Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades #209

I forgot, what were you and jflntx arguing about again?

He was calling me a "Christian hater" because I was supporting the idea that the Constitution does contemplate a separation of Church and State. Both Jefferson and Madison interpreted the Constitution that way, and I would consider them authorities on the subject. So I called him an ignorant moron.

While it's true that our legal system is, in large part, based upon basic concepts of Judeo-Christian morality (Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit murder...), legal responsibility and moral responsibility are not identical concepts. You may have a moral duty to do something (like saving someone from drowning if your life is not put in danger by doing it) without having a legal duty to do it (i.e., being subject to punishment for not doing it).

Speaking of Separation of Church and State-

They will peez me off if they take Christmas away as a Federal holiday.

I would, however, endorse adding a day or two each year to the Federal calendar to observe significant Jewish holidays. Chanukkah is too long, and it wasn't originally a big time holiday, no?

But Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. We need another holiday in the Autumn anyway.

Now, the Muslims are tricky, their two great feast days, the Eids wander through the solar calendar because of their lunar calendar. (From what I understand, the Jews were good enough to build in a leap month so that while Passover may vary a bit, the middle of Nissin occurs sometime during the Spring).

So, I propose "Eid" be the last Monday of September, or perhaps the first Monday of March, and be observed as a Federal holiday. With football or baseball games, car races, BBQs with hamburgers and pork ribs, beer, sales at Neiman-Marcus and Sak's.

I am so multicultural.

Late Wednesday, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., revealed that she would vote against the measure. "I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," Clinton, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said in a statement

Karl Rove wins again!

G'night

#217 Terp Mole

get Congress on record for who's with us or against us!

I'm just curious. Who would be with us? Those who voted for or against?

Abu Maven #218 -

I disagree. I don't think that Pepsi could get away with appropriating Coke's trademark. It is highly doubtful that that would be interpreted as "parody" protected by the First Amendment.

#209 Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades - Doesn't Los Angeles translate to City of Angels? Oh the HORROR!
Yeah, some people have gotten crazy (crazier?) about this kind of stuff. The city WAS founded by Christian missionaries and the removing of the cross from the seal is totally offensive; it IS a part of LA's heritage.

Ed Mahmoud abu al Qahool Martyr Brigades #221 -

LOL!

#226 realwest

Exactly!

218 Abu Maven

Makes sense to me, Constitutional law should trump the property laws.

Just wish there was a way to protect the flag from these maggots- without having to post bail

Has anybody Godwinized this thread yet? Because, if I recall correctly, Hitler's first act upon being appointed to the Chancellorship of Germany (January 1933) was to prohibit displays of destroying the Nazi swastika flag (cue Twilight Zone music).

I can't find a link; I would have to go back to my treasured Alan Bullock biography to make sure.

A stupid bill from the right. It will make Hillary look good. I'm kind of pissed off.

#221 Ed

pork ribs

The prime reason me and Islam will never see eye to eye.

"Amy is mistaken. Trademark rights (a form of property rights) do not trump First Amendment rights, unless the trademark is being used in such a way so as to create a likelihood of confusion."

Al-Guardian: Spoof suicide-bomber ad sparks global row

For many this recalls the uproar over National Lampoon's famous 1973 Volkswagen ad parody: A Beetle floating on a pond, as seen in real VW ads of the time, but captioned "If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen, he'd be President today."

Volkswagen claimed that quite a few people took it for a real VW ad and threatened legal action.

#232 LiveFreeOrDie

A stupid bill from the right.

Yup.

It will make Hillary look good.

No matter how you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

225 Amy,

I am a trademark lawyer. As I said, it would not be deemed an "appropriation" unless it was determined to cause a likelihood of confusion among the relevant consuming public. If Pepsi did it in such a way so as to make clear that it was a parody (and thus not confusing), it would probably be ok.

The only reason I use the "probably" qualificiation is that generally trademark parodies are not done by direct competitors.

I am against ANY amendment which further limits individual liberty - we had two already and both were disasters (one of which took another amendment to undo, the other is still slowly consuming us).

We don't need an amendment to outlaw people from acting like assholes, showing their self-hatred, or expressing earnest concern that their government is becoming a tyrany, whether in public or the privacy of their own basements.

This should not be passed.

I would rather one be passed reaffirming that religion shall not be recognized and that our guests in GITMO will no longer be getting korans handed to them with white gloves.

Spitting on someone is an assault and battery in Massachusetts:

Court case

You'd have to check the laws of your state.

Abu Maven #236 -

...generally trademark parodies are not done by direct competitors.

Exactly. But you're right that I shouldn't have assumed that it would be an appropriation.

I never thought I'd agree with Charles and Terp Mole separately, much less at once, but yes, this amendment is a terrible idea and yes, it is brilliant political strategy. It's a very popular issue (doesn't it poll around 80% every time?) and it will look extremely bad for any Democrats who oppose it- they will alienate most people- and for those who support it- they will alienate their base.

I think there should be a constitutional amendment to make flags flame retardant.

It's a stupid feel-good bill.

I had tears in my eyes the first baseball game I went to after 9/11. The audience sang the National Anthem with great fervor. The flag flying in the breeze. It was an awesome moment.

This amendment is ridiculous, however. The flag is not America - it is a symbol. As a symbol, burning the flag accomplishes zilch.

I don't think it's brilliant, and I think a lot of Republicans are going to go, What the...? And a lot of people on the fence are going to go, What the...?

Doesn't do the Republicans any good at all.

solomonpanting wrote: I'm just curious. Who would be with us? Those who voted for or against?

How many guesses do you need?

Karl Rove is a genius!

Get Congress on record for who's with us or against us!

I think there should be a Constitutional amendment to elect smarter representatives.

239 Amy,

So you acknowledge that if any average Joe did this, it would clearly be protected. It is only the fact that Coke is involved that brings it into a gray area, correct?

#245 steve miller

I think there should be a Constitutional amendment to elect smarter representatives.

That would require smarter voters! Like that's going to happen,,,

think there should be a constitutional amendment to make flags flame retardant.

When flags are flame retardant, only retards will try to set flame to flags!

Abu Maven #246

Yup. If an average Joe did it, it would probably be displayed as an installation at some art gallery.

Charles

Post 159 - Highly offensive...

#240 Absoludicrious

The reason I asked Terp Mole is the same as I ask you:

If you oppose this law, as I do, would you want Senators and Congressmen to do the same?

I agree there should be no amendment.

As for the historical preference of the fore fathers when writing the first amendment regarding the sacredness of the flag or other symbol, I would like to remind folks that oppose this that these same men and their followers did protest against the British government by burning british flags and burning the king in effigy.

I do believe that they would not outlaw something they themselves enjoyed as a form of protest.

For the record, it sets my teeth on edge when I see some one burning the flag, BUT, the thing I intend to defend with all my might is the constitution, of which the flag is but a symbol. Even if they burned a thousand flags and the actual constitution, they could not burn it's meaning or truths from my mind or heart.

Burn the flag, they will never change me or this country.

If this passes the House and Senate as "proof who's on our side," then for the first time since Bobby Kennedy I'd be on the side of the Democrats.

solomonpanting wrote: The reason I asked Terp Mole is the same as I ask you

Allow Terp Mole to repeat: How many guesses do you need?

Karl Rove is a genius!

Get Congress on record for who's with us or against us!

Good for you, Charles. Nothing wrong with finding it distasteful, it's another thing to ban it. This applies to free speech-related activities across the board.

Terp Mole -

I think the point is: Who are "us"? Those who are for or those who are against? The vast majority of posters on this thread are against.

Terp Mole

Btw, your link doesn't work. I get a message that my access is "forbidden." So I have no idea what the heck you're trying to say.

#254 Terp Mole

From your posted link (the only one I had access to was the one of the boy urinating on the flag) it appears as though you favor this bill?

#257 Amy

Thank you! I was attempting to gather more of Terp Mole's leanings.

Thanks Charles

#90 Abu -- Good link, good read (long)

[Link: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...]

*snip*

To say that the government has an interest in encouraging proper treatment of the flag, however, is not to say that it may criminally punish a person for burning a flag as a means of political protest.

*snip*

We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag burner's message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by - as one witness here did - according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.

*snip*

Burning the flag can be legal if it's a peaceful political protest.
...BUTTT...
Illegal if local city county codes for public safety are compromised.

psyduck - you willfully set something on fire "It's Arson" arson=illegal
( cept maybe BBQ )

/first time post, long time lurker

I think its a good way to weed out who in Congress are anti- American, for example Hillary who is against it, but a part of me feels it is a representation of the U. S. How many muslims and other America haters have burned the flag? How did you feel? I for one believe the flag means something to and burning it hurts me to the bone. Sorry Charles, why should we be just like the rest of the savages who disrespect the flag? I have to disagree with you, but I respect you and all the other lizoids that disagree with me.

#260 UBetcha - Welcome to the Dark Side!
Always glad to welcome new posters aboard!

psyduck - you willfully set something on fire "It's Arson" arson=illegal

Campfires? How do you dispose of an old flag? You willfully do what to it?

Contradiction.

psyduck

OK you got me.

As per local city or county codes.

The public safety thing.

There are all sorts of limits on expression. I cannot walk down the street naked no matter what I am protesting for or against. Personally I find burning the flag much more offensive then naked body, even liberal ones. Amending the constitution just for this is another mater.

I fully support the amendment to prohibit flag desecration.

Adoption of such an amendment will not result in the blame-America-first crowd going underground. They will reveal themselves in plenty of other ways because they just can't help it. There is no good reason to give them ammunition to further their bad ideas, to further harm America, to further attack everything we hold dear. The flag is more than just a piece of cloth with some pretty colors and nice design. To many in the military, it is a source of inspiration because it symbolizes their purpose for serving.

We have, as a country, for too long, failed to stand up and say that some things are just wrong and bad -- bad for our country, bad for our culture, bad for our people. We are so afraid of being accused of being a bigot, a fascist, a homophobe, etc. that we no longer have the courage to say that some things are just bad, that some things are right and some things are wrong. Flag burning is wrong and we ought to have the courage to say so and take steps to show that we really mean it.

It is a big mistake to equate flag burning with expression and free speech. Burning is burning - it is primarily conduct and, at best, only incidentally speech. Yes, I know the rationale the Supreme Court used in its 5-4 decision to the contrary. I am also aware of lots of other decisions made by a majority of that body that are just flat out wrong, and have taken this country down more than just a slippery slope. The court has turned our Constitution - our contract with the federal government - into a living breathing document, filled with penumbras, whose meaning and application turn upon the men/women of the time instead of the language in the contract itself. The activist actions of the federal courts during the last few decades have changed the constitutional landscape into their personal playground for implementing their own view of what America should be instead of what it was for nearly 200 years.

We have become so obsessed with free speech protections (unless it occurs just before an election - ask the Supreme Court), that we forget that there is some conduct that is just wrong and should be prohibited even if it arguably involves some aspects of expression. If calling a person a liar is a crime in many states because it is likely to incite violence, why is it that flag-burning is not - even though it is just as likely to evoke a violent response. Why the difference in treatment? Why is it that "hate speech" is a crime? Why is it that a person who commits an assault while stating an ethnic slur receives a stiffer sentence simply because of his speech? Isn't that stiffer punishment for pure speech? If we are willing to punish all sorts of speech that slurs minorities, why is it that we cannot punish speech that insults the majority?

We already prohibit and punish all sorts of speech. Why is it that we cannot protect the sacred symbols of who we are? The flag is a symbol that should inspire us all to better serve our country and neighbor. I think it is a big mistake to give ammunition to the enemies of America while we hamstring our own ability to preserve our heritage and protect ourselves.

If this amendment passes we can expect the flag to disappear from daily life. It would be too much of a risk to display in any form lest someone in the law enforcement community decides that your display constitutes "desecration".

What is a "flag"? Is a cloth with 51 stars in the union still considered an American flag? How about my stars and stripes swim suit? Is it a flag? Is wearing any stars and stripes apparel considered "desecration"? Notice that the exact phrase in the amendment is "the" flag, not "a" flag. Where is "the" flag of the United States? Will there be a Federal Bureau of Flag Protection?

#266, you said:

>>We already prohibit and punish all sorts of speech. Why is it that we cannot protect the sacred symbols of who we are?

Do you have any idea where this logic can take us? Your thinking is incredibly dangerous...open your eyes.

>>The flag is a symbol that should inspire us all to better serve our country and neighbor.

Agreed. But why mke it illegal to "desecrate" it?

>>I think it is a big mistake to give ammunition to the enemies of America while we hamstring our own ability to preserve our heritage and protect ourselves.

Letting them burn the flag gives them ammunition? Oh come on! I bet you're the type that just hates politically correct speech codes (I know I am)...in which case, you are a hypocrite.

Sorry for being so harsh but you really need to think through the consequences here.

Great use of 'agendae' :-)

If you can't find any other reason to oppose this, think about this:

The next time (if ever) we have a Democrat house and senate, they have a precedent for national hate speech legislation.

Of course, you and I know that it has bug-all to do with hate. It's all about control, and punishing the opposition.

Just do what Texas did. Establish in law that socking a flag-burner (not causing serious injury) is an infraction with a $20 fine.

#270 Merovign

Actually, to correct myself, I'm not sure that Texas law was passed and is being enforced. Did a quick gander and couldn't find it, just references to a bill.

It was 71.5% in jest anyway. Maybe 65%.

First the flag,...then the koran...

Let the idiots burn it and may the sensible among give them a personal demonstration of just how we feel about it.

I also have mixed feelings about it, but I don't need the HUGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT telling me what I can and can't say(or in this case do). Not that I would ever do something as idiotic as burn an American Flag.

I don't know who to be more ill at, the idiots burning it, or the idiots trying to make it unconstitutional to do so.

owl

pimf - should have read - (...can or can't do (with my liberty). )

first post mornin' jitters. ;) haha

If this amendment passes and becomes part of the supreme law of the land it will join the Three-Fifths Comprimise, Prohibition, and the earliest voting requirements on the Island of Misfit Constitutional Provisions.

On the other hand, eventually someone is going to start a big fire while burning a flag. I would argue anti-public burning laws should include the flag.

Once we channel these types of protesters into specific locations, I recommend carrying aroung gasoline in a stream-spray bottle. The stream should work perfectly.

What FUN!

Fine with me. Not because I believe the flag is sacrosanct, but because I feel that anything that occupies this gutless Congress and prevents it from spending like drunken sailors or undermining this Bush administration is to be welcomed.

I am suprised (pleasantly) that so many LGFers have taken a critical view of this legislation.

I feel the amendment is a mistake. It would be far better to simply return to the original interpretation of the first amendment which is that the federal government cannot pass any law impinging on speech. The states (via the 14th) would be able to place no limits on political or religious speech-- speech meaning words. There would be a lesser but substantial protection to economic, artistic, or meaningless speech.

The problem comes from defining conduct as speech. Conduct cannot express complex ideas. For that matter, pornography does not express complex ideas either.

The ACLU, by working to broaden the definition of speech has materially lessened the protections available to actual speech. This is how you get McCain-Feingold and speech codes at state universities.

In spite of what #266 may think, I have thought about this flag desecration issue – and many other Supreme Court decisions – for many years. If my think is dangerous, then I am in very good company: the four dissenting justices (including Rehnquist & Stevens) in the case the allowed flag desecration; Gen. Norm Schwarzkopf; the American Legion; and the overwhelming majority of America's military.

In my opinion, the number of posts opposing the amendment is an illustration of how the bad decisions of the Supreme Court have, over the last few decades, changed how Americans think about crucial issues in our society. We have come to think that, because the Supremes say so, that's the way it has always been. The Supremes have protected flag desecration for so long that we have many people believing it has always been okay to do just that. Bunk. Flag desecration during the Civil War was considered treason and punishable by death - which was carried out at least once. Flag desecration laws were commonplace in this country until the Supremes changed the landscape.

The slippery slope is not adopting this amendment. Wake up - we have been on the slippery slope for years - put there by the Supreme Court - down a slope that is ever chipping away at who we are and who we were.

I agree with the 4 dissenters in the Supreme Court case the struck down flag desecration laws.
[Link: www.lawriter.net...]
"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.
"More than 80 years ago, in Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907), this Court upheld the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute that forbade the use of representations of the American flag for advertising purposes upon articles of merchandise. The Court there said:
"For that flag every true American has not simply an appreciation, but a deep affection. . . . Hence, it has often occurred that insults to a flag have been the cause of war, and indignities put upon it, in the presence of those who revere it, have often been resented and sometimes punished on the spot.

***
"Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized governments are instituted. The Court decides that the American flag is just another symbol, about which not only must opinions pro and con be tolerated, but for which the most minimal public respect may not be enjoined. The government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.

Justice Stevens dissent also said the following:

[Link: www.lawriter.net...]

"The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. Even so, I have no doubt that the interest in preserving that value for the future is both significant and legitimate. Conceivably, that value will be enhanced by the Court's conclusion that our national commitment to free expression is so strong that even the United States, as ultimate guarantor of that freedom, is without power to prohibit the desecration of its unique symbol. But I am unpersuaded. The creation of a federal right to post bulletin boards and graffiti on the Washington Monument might enlarge the market for free expression, but at a cost I would not pay. Similarly, in my considered judgment, sanctioning the public desecration of the flag will tarnish its value -- both for those who cherish the ideas for which it waves and for those who desire to don the robes of martyrdom by burning it. That tarnish is not justified by the trivial burden on free expression occasioned by requiring that an available, alternative mode of expression -- including uttering words critical of the flag, *** The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for -- and our history demonstrates that they are -- it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration."

Im going to take the petty approach and state that while I agree most forms of "political" speech should be unrestricted,

I see no value whatsoever to flag-burning. Its an act, not words, and it is deliberately meant to incite and enrage.

FUrther, it will drive the lefties bonkers.

OTOH, I do see the slippery slope argument.

Tough call.

Ill lean towards dont pass the amendment, with reservations.

Hows that for wishy washy?

I agree. Our enemies are known for their hatred and their idiocy. Their propensity for burning our flag, killing Christians and wanting to nuke Israel allows us to easily identify them with laser guided bombs. Thus we would be losing a great tool in the war against Islam...er, terror. Another concern with banning flag burning is that a prominent moonbat will make an analogy stating how inherently "unfair" it is that one symbol of oppression is protected (the flag) when another (The Holy Quran - NY Times spelling) is not. Eventually this bill could become a trojan horse for First Amendment restrictions against public and private statements critical of Islam and against the "defamation" of the Holy Quran.

Your'e right again Charles.
I've contacted my worthless congressman and expressed my displeasure with the legislation, but because it's a non controversial issue chances are it will pass.
Free speech takes another hit.

Agree.

Gee, looking at all the "conservative" or "rightwing" commenters who gravitate to this sight and agree the law is stupid, I wonder what a moonbat would think?

How could knuckledraggers like us be for freedom of speech in an instance like this?

Could it possibly be because most of us arrive at our positions because we THINK IT THROUGH?

The House is misguided on this. While I too find flag burning abhorrent, protecting a symbol of our freedom should not take a higher precedence over freedom itself. Let those who hate make public spectacles of themselves and be the objects of our collective scorn and derision.

Consider that vile infamous photo of St. Pancake - it demonstrates her loathesome support for crimes against humanity, but the burning itself should not be criminal. G-d forbid we go down the path of the [bigoted word]s who so freely spill the blood of innocents to protest the perceived desecration of their book.

I agree with Charles; I also have a few other things to say on the subject.

I like the saying

"Your rights end where mine begin"

Time to draw the line.

I am with #278.

My husband , who is retired disabled military says seeing a flag burning is like seeing your home burn down. Many times that flag was the only thing that kept him and his bros going during his service time.

The freaking moonbats have enough ways to express themselves.

They have so much so it has become a daily abuse to me, in every aspect of my life. My daughters' school, middle school and college, their sports activities, my husband's job as an enivironmental scientist, the news, family programming, music, art, movies. I am sick of it.

At my daughter's graduation last week, tell me this: why should I even have to cringe when they ask for us alll to say "The Pledge" ? Why am I afriad someone will be upset and say something like "Oh Oh you are stepping on my feelings"..whatever.

F! That crap. Geez. Pass the law. See what happens.
Moonbats are creative and we don't need a flag burning to spot them in a crowd do we?

Watch this video on an empty stomach says my husband. He got this from his childhood bud who is USAREC.ARMY. (I can't watch it on my mac for some reason):

[Link: www.filecabi.net...]