[djab]

Im writing a paper on flag burning and if there should be an amendment made to allow people to burn flags as free speech. Do you think the first amendment states that flag burning is a form of free speech? I am asking for your views on this so i can get a feel on the situation and can help me find my own views.
Thanks djab

[american_flag_uk]

it s a hard one.

flag burning is an issue because Americans have MADE it an issue....
by being offended when one is burned... (and as a Brit im offended aswell!) i m completely against flag burning of any nations flag

the flag code and 1st amendment are contradictory towards one another and that is one reason why flag burning is such a controversial issue in the USA.

in England sadly we only really pull out our flags when its time for the World Cup or other sporting event which involves international contest. and ive seen our flag being burned after we have lost in such sporting event.
but in England it isnot much of an issue. when i saw that flag burning in the street the police were nearby and were more concerned for public safety and they stamped on the flag with their feet to put the flames out (it was a 'melting' flag rather than a burning flag!) and everybody just walked away.

what america needs to do is amend the flag code and the laws on the flag

the flag code is out dated when it comes to both burning the flag and wearing the flag. and also the 1st amendment could do with amending to make it possible for laws on public flag desecration (burning trampling on spitting on etc) to be put in place. and for them not to contradict themselves as they are doing at present

[SebKent]

I need crack of PDF+ ( of mbrain) ! pdf+ (for nokia E61) many 10x

[NAVA1974]

Notwithstanding the previous unintelligible comment, flag burning in the US is an un-solvable issue: The Flag of the United States stands for, among other things, the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. One of those freedoms is the right to Free Speech. On one hand, to deny the right to emphasize your position by burning a flag violates the Constitution. On the other hand, to use the flag in that manner flies in the face of the very right you are trying to exercise.

[Peter Ansoff]

Some comments on the previous comments:

Do you think the first amendment states that flag burning is a form of free speech?

The First Amendment does not say that, but I think it's reasonable to infer that it covers it. Freedom of speech means the freedom to make unpopular political statements (if it doesn't mean that then I'm not sure what it does mean), and burning a flag is certainly a political statement. People have quibbled over the fact that burning a flag is not "speech," but it's a symbolic act that conveys an obvious message even if it doesn't involve the movement of the protester's vocal cords.

the flag code and 1st amendment are contradictory towards one another and that is one reason why flag burning is such a controversial issue in the USA.

In what way does the flag code contradict the First Amendment? Except for Section 3 and Section 7c, the flag code is worded in terms of how the flag "should" be treated -- it does not even have the force of law, much less of an amendment to the Constitution. Section 7c says nothing about "desecration" issues, and Section 3 is effective only in the District of Columbia (and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional if anyone tried to enforce it). I don't think that the controversy over flag burning has anything to do with the flag code.

what america needs to do is amend the flag code and the laws on the flag
the flag code is out dated when it comes to both burning the flag and wearing the flag.

There's no question that the flag code could use some improvement. It is ambiguous, self-contradictory, and is silent on some important matters. However, the code makes clear that the flag should be treated with respect, and I don't think that any revision is needed there. Again, the flag code is a set of guidelines. It does not have the force of law and (in my opinion) it should not.

the 1st amendment could do with amending to make it possible for laws on public flag desecration (burning trampling on spitting on etc) to be put in place.

Why? Public disrespect for the flag is obnoxious, but we don't pass laws against things just because they're obnoxious.

On one hand, to deny the right to emphasize your position by burning a flag violates the Constitution. On the other hand, to use the flag in that manner flies in the face of the very right you are trying to exercise.

As I've pointed out in other posts here, it's a paradox that freedom includes the right to despise freedom. The real question, though is: How does burning a flag threaten us, our institutions and our country? Answer: It doesn't. You could burn every flag in the USA, and it would make no difference whatsoever -- we'd make more flags, and carry on. The fact that we tolerate such acts is not a weakness, but a strength. It shows that we mean what we say about the principles on which our nation is founded, and that we're not afraid of those who disagree with them.

Peter Ansoff

[NAVA1974]

John: You said "How does burning a flag threaten us, our institutions and our country? Answer: It doesn't." And I thought of those who are most closely allied with advocating respect for the flag - the veterans who fought for, and fought alongside those who died for - our flag. Is not the act of burning the flag like a "hate crime" towards those veterans? Why should we tolerate flag burning any more than we we tolerate the use of racial or ethnic epithets towards minorities? Are not those also expressions of free speech protected by the First Amendment? The answer is, yes, all are protected forms of speech, and all are reprehensible, and all should be protested loudly. But we must continue to permit them, or we begin to loose our freedoms as well.

[Peter Ansoff]

John:

Yes, Bill? (-;

I thought of those who are most closely allied with advocating respect for the flag - the veterans who fought for, and fought alongside those who died for - our flag. Is not the act of burning the flag like a "hate crime" towards those veterans?

It is supremely disrespectful, not only to veterans but to everyone who believes in the ideals that our country stands for. It is also hypocritical -- as you pointed out earlier, it "flies in the face of the very right you are trying to exercise." My preferred adjective for it would simply be "stupid." However, it’s not a crime, except insofar as it’s covered by laws against other things (arson, inciting a riot, trespassing, etc.)

(It's off the subject, but I find the legal concept of "hate crime" to be a bit scary. As I understand it, the definition revolves around the motivation of the perpetrator -- in other words, we're punishing someone more severely because of what they were thinking about when they committed the crime. That strikes me as rather Orwellian.)

Why should we tolerate flag burning any more than we tolerate the use of racial or ethnic epithets towards minorities?

Perhaps "tolerate" was a poor choice of words on my part. My point was certainly not that we should condone it, any more than we should condone racial slurs. By "tolerate" I meant that it should not be made illegal.

Are not those also expressions of free speech protected by the First Amendment? The answer is, yes, all are protected forms of speech, and all are reprehensible, and all should be protested loudly. But we must continue to permit them, or we begin to loose our freedoms as well.

I agree 100% -- well, maybe 95%. The idiots who burn flags are trying to draw attention to themselves, and by "protesting loudly," we're just giving them what they want. My inclination is to pay them as little attention as possible.

What's funny is that I doubt you'd find very many people who want a constitutional amendment to ban racial slurs; however, lots of them think that we should have one to ban disrespect for the flag.

Peter Ansoff

[CultureGeek]

Correction: What I mean to say is that the Constitution is more important than a flag, which is what some would put above a key civil liberty.

[CultureGeek]

D'oh! Lost a post again. Either I'm missing a step or my posts are too long.

Anyway, what I was saying was that I wholeheartedly agree that the Bill of Rights comes first. The flag is the symbol of America, but the Constitution (including the amendments) is the brain, heart, and soul. To make the symbol sacrosanct at the expense of the substance is to completely miss the point.

To exclude the flag from free expression would be more of a desecration than anything someone could ever do to an individual flag.

Furthermore, to continue the discussion started by the racism metaphor, the First Amendment is a safety valve for bad ideas in addition to a protection for good ones.

That's something people don't always think about but the Constitution is amazing. A lot more thought went into it than most people put into suggesting ways to tinker with it. The Framers thought about that too; that's why it's so hard to tinker with.

BTW, as for flag burning, it is the recommended method of disposal of old, worn flags that are no longer suitable to serve as a symbol of our nation.

[lorryuncori]

Hi! I'm Lorryuncori.
How are you?