Take that you stupid flag!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/...o/flag_burning

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote — eight more than needed — House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.

---

I thought that this was quite interesting news that this may pass for once. I believe now it is the 8th time this has passed the house and moves on to the senate.

What does everyone think about this admendment? It is going to far? BLAH BLAH BLAH?

On another note who knows how the ratification process works for the states? Do the citizens get to vote or what?

I wouldnt be against a ban on the descration of the flag. Seriously i think there are some forms of free speech that should not be allowed.

this might be a bit off topic but American Idiot- Green Day was banned for defacing the flag (coloured it in green!)

Disgusting. As if they haven't killed enough of our rights.

You cannot criminalise someone destroying their own property. I can't believe people could be advocating this, I understand it can be viewed with bad taste but so can the KKK marching.
You're in danger of sitting back & slowly letting your government turn America into a police state. Leaders of the free world? It's slipping fast people.

I agree. This is absolutely abhorrent. Why are we worried about desecrating the flag when our own politicians are desecrating our rights!?

Well if this manages to pass the senate then it will go on to the states and I believe every state but vermont has passed some sort of legistlation asking congress to get them this amendment.

The only way to prevent this is to mail(not e-mail) your senator a letter telling them how you feel on this and what you think and tell them not to do it(or do it depending on your stance). E-Mail doesn't work but hundreds of letters do work. If it is hand written it is even better.

It truly pisses me off to think that they are passing laws based on a concept as shallow as patriotism. Patriotism ahs done nothing but kill people, and I want my constitution to stay as far away from it as possible. Patriotism is blind, it's arrogant, and it's downright stupid, yet we pass laws restricting peoples freedom based off of something as lowly as this? Please.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

that is the height of total stupiduty? somehow flag burning would have stopped 9-11? that it had anything to do with it? yes all these nasty muslims do it. but this law has no concequence for them anyway (america doesn't yet control the rest of the world). it is yet again 9-11 being held up for stupid patriots to get behind. to think that it may protect somene or something.

terrorism is so many times brought out to pass laws. this is just another. it is obvious it is totally irrelevant. but yet again it is used. and for what use? the reichstag fire and the growing threat of communism and jews? no sorry that was another country that used the same thing over and over again to change it's constitution......... and america is nothing like that.. *cough*

the small quote sums up american politics since 9-11. it's wrong, ignorant, manipulative and somehow still believed.......

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that has never been so clear here. By waving the proverbial 9/11 references, it's guaranteed to get emotions & views, which truely do not belong in this discussion, to push this through. The American public will be sancimoniously smiling it's way to a police state & by the time the masses suddenly notice what's being done, it will bring about a civil war, the like of which we have never seen.

I hope this doesn't pass, and I doubt it will. Burning the flag, as despicable as it is, is a form of speech that should be protected. Banning the burning of the flag is one step short of saying "Dissidence will not be tolerated."

Besides, Constitutional amendments are meant to protect rights, not limit them.

can i ask why burning thr flag is so bad anyway?

in britain it's actually illegal to go around breaking or altering stuff with the queens face on, like money, stamps etc. (are those souvenior things that press the coin into an oval with a stmp on it legal?) but that has to do withe the fact that they are also legal tender. yes even stamps.

is it really such a big deal? to deface a coin? to burn a flag? what's despicable about it?

To destory currency is bad because it can mess up how much it is worth. People think there is x out there but there is really y.

Stamps...that is just smurfing retarded.

Thank God I'll be out of this country in a few months.

.opt

I can't see what people hope to achieve by burning the flag these days. It's happened so many times that it's really not that shocking. All that would be achieved is the irritation of die-hard patriots, and their upset gains nothing, except that it makes them campaign even more fervently for flag burning to be banned, and we all know that as those are the Republicans' target voters, they will be listened to.

As for banning the flag's desecration, again I would like to know what that ultimately achieves. The intention is to prevent the desecration of the flag, but ironically it would probably result in more acts of desecration due to people protesting against this amendment.

One of the key principles of America is freedom of speech, but then when people want to exercise that freedom of speech against America, how can they complain that their rights as American citizens are being taken away when they are campaigning against America and what it stands for in the first place? When you burn the flag, you're taking a stand against everything that America stands for, and that includes freedom of speech, democracy and liberty. You can easily say that burning the flag could be an attempt to show opposition to something else, such as President Bush or the war with Iraq, but neither Bush nor the war are America. If you want to show opposition to them, then burn a photo of Bush instead.

Although on the other hand it can be asked that how can Congress be opposed to those taking action against the principles on which the US prides itself when they themselves are ignoring a key principle of the US? To be honest, what they are doing is practically as anti-American as burning the flag.

Neither side has a particularly strong argument in my opinion, and to be honest I don't really care one way or the other if the amendment passes, because it really isn't that big of a deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

---

This is the same Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham who is about to be run out of Congress and hopefully imprisoned for accepting bribes (over $1 million) from a second-rate defense contractor in return for government defense contracts (over $60 million).

I think I will vomit if this amendment actually passes.

wow i didnt bother reading due to the fac tthat I saw them pass it on C-Span I was like nnnnnnuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu but then again i can always join a protest in mexico woot!!!


!viva la flag burning!

but seriously when you wanna send a message across to the leaders one thing always works flag burning I mean flags were made to get burned for reasons of protest.

Funny thing. The only circumstance I would ever desecrate a flag is if a law like this came to pass. In any other situation it would be a pretty hollow and ineffective move, but the very presence of a law like this demands action be taken and as the past court cases have often shown, one of the more effective ways of doing this is by simply breaking the law.

Ok, why does this matter? Flag burning isn't exactly a national pastime.

Well, it matters because it could be the start of a slippery slope. Is it going to be? Maybe, maybe not; similar laws were created in the wake of Vietnam-era flag burning, but were eventually repealed in '89. Nonetheless they were repealed. But yeah, today flag burning, how long until Robin Williams or Ellen DeGeneres is in trouble for making fun of some aspect of the US?

Aside from the fact that there is simply no grounds for a law like this. It hurts feelings? A lot of things hurt my feelings - hell, someone actually burning Old Glory does cause a bit of irritation - but I'd never stop them doing it. If you ban it, they win. If you let them do it, you win, because the fact they can do it shows their issue is weakened already.

i'm for it. why burn a flag of your own nation? it's disrespectful and absurd. only Nazis do those things.

Go ahead....no one gives a damn about free speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuffie514

i'm for it. why burn a flag of your own nation? it's disrespectful and absurd. only Nazis do those things.

---

Actually, Nazi's burned books and held their flag in very high regard, so what you said has no basis.

Flag burning is usually done for political/protest reasons, but that isnt the point here. The point has been reiterated here many times by people far more eloquent than I, so I wont rehash it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moronic Politician

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

---

My question is this: Why are thier opinions any more valid than anybody elses?

Quote:

---

When you burn the flag, you're taking a stand against everything that America stands for, and that includes freedom of speech, democracy and liberty.

---

Who says?

Quote:

---

Funny thing. The only circumstance I would ever desecrate a flag is if a law like this came to pass.

---

Same here.

Quote:

---

i'm for it. why burn a flag of your own nation? it's disrespectful and absurd. only Nazis do those things.

---

First of all, the only thing 'absurd' here is this statement. Where do you get the idea that 'only Nazis do those things'? But more importantly, do you seriously believe that Nazi ideology, as despicable as it may be, should be censored just because you don't like it? That is a dangerous mindset, and it's one that I cannot accept.

I really don't understand it, flag burning is just another way to express your opposition to what your country is standing for, not what it has traditionally been standing for. The flag is simply an icon to represent a country, not to represent an idea such as free speech, or even to represent the people in the country. The ideas represented by the country, then, depend on who speaks of the country: for many people the US stands for democracy and freedom. I believe such idea is quite close to US chauvinism, I really can't admit a country that stands for freedom and democracy, even less when we are talking of the most powerful nation in the world, but not the most democratic or liberal one. For me, the US stands for imperialism and Coca-Cola. For the flag burner, the flag dosen't stand for freedom of speech, so try to change your perspective a little bit and understand the whole point.

Oh, I have never really burnt a flag. There are other ways of expressing disagreement on things, ways that are more original and probably more convincing. To me, a flag in flames is already a preety overused image, and is really not shocking at all, nor will it make people change their minds about a subject. I don't care if it's irrespectful because I hold no respect for icons and avatars. It's just not original.

A while ago, some dude here burnt the flag on TV. The country didn't do anything to him, since it was part of his freedom of expression. However, he got sued by quite a few angry citizens, and he had to publicly apologise. I think this is the best way to deal with this - the flag is the symbol of the nation and its people, and if burning it hurts people's feelings, there's a lot they can do about it. Just like you can't control what people say ("The USA sucks", "I hate black people", "Turnips make me sick", etc), the country shouldn't attempt to control someone's actions, when all it is hurt by them, is emotions.

This LJ entry makes a number of highly valid points, and the last paragraph more or less sums up my own thoughts on the matter. (For people too lazy to look, he says: "Personally, I find burning the flag to be stupid, childish, and unnecessarily offensive to many good people. But I still believe that we should be able to burn it whenever the hell we want. If we can't, then it doesn't stand for much at all. And the legal right to burn the flag is one of the best reasons not to burn the flag.")

The whole point of this ammendment is the fact that its useless.....

I mean most o the flag burning is done overseas.

You'll always have people that are stupid enough to burn the flag, because they don't know (or believe) all that it stands for. And you'll always have others--such as myself--who are willing (and often happy) to use violence to protect that flag from the dumbasses who try to burn it, and by so doing, disrespect all who fought for that flag.

well teh whole point is lol no one inteh USA ever burns a flag in a protest so this is a useless amendment.Since the way to dispose of a worn out flag is to burn it.

my opinion is its just a flag that represents a country.IT has a lot of meaning to it but really the material its made out of burns just so perfectly.lol they need to produce fire proof flags .

Quote:

---

well teh whole point is lol no one inteh USA ever burns a flag in a protest so this is a useless amendment.

---

Untrue. It has happened before.


This law is worse than burning the flag. It's invalidating the flag.

I find it Ironic, that I defend, I will defend my life for this country some day. The flag is a symbolic symbol of this country, and I defend it, and at the same time people have their "right" to burn it. I really dont care to tell you the truth, just hope whoever does burns one ends up like this guy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ckassowned.gif

I dont think the bill will get passed, because it violates your right of freedom of speech, and expression.

The issue at hand is not the burning of a flag, it's the fact that they want to make a law that is going against the very thing that flag is supposed to represent. Frankly, I'm not fond of burning flags, I'd be more willing to burn some of the politicians in effigy, it'd be less open to interpretation as to what it is I'm actually saying (and no, I am not advocating such a thing nor am I saying I would, I'm merely saying that I tend to find flag burning somewhat ineffective).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

I find it Ironic, that I defend, I will defend my life for this country some day. The flag is a symbolic symbol of this country, and I defend it, and at the same time people have their "right" to burn it.

---

well, our soldiers have been fighting for freedom, which includes the right to burn your own flag, so make of that what you will.

Yeah your all right, I agree whole heartdly. What does flag burning do anyway, maybe the people that do it, just want to make people like some of us MAD. :p

Quote:

---

I find it Ironic, that I defend, I will defend my life for this country some day. The flag is a symbolic symbol of this country, and I defend it, and at the same time people have their "right" to burn it.

---

You find it to be ironic? Strange, I find it to be reassuring.

There is nothing more despicable than flag-burning. It's an abhorrent practice and the people that burn a flag does not attack a modern America, but they attack her basic premises: freedom, justice, rationality.

That being said, if this passes in Congress it's just another step towards totalitarian American. Christ, the idea scares me.

If this law passes, I may not mind so much when the youth burn the flag, if they are doing it on principle. ...maybe not. It's still disgusting. But if we're allowing it to come to this, what more?

:beer:

it seems ironic though...
I mean once a flag is worn out and unfit for display aren't you supposed to burn it as a sign of respect.
Secondly, these people supporting this amendment are wearing clothes with the flag on it when clearly the rules for respecting the flag say you cannot put it on clothes, curtains etc.
Thirdly, if someone burns a flag who cares?! I mean if people want to get angry at something, look at the U.S. debt, look at the war casualities, look at the corrupt senators in state legislatures (Tennessee John Ford recently was put into federal custody for threatening a federal witness and accepting bribes while in public office)

I personally don't mind if flag-burning is prohibited. It's a symbolic act of desecration, much like book-burning - including religious book-burning.

I can't recall whether it's expressly illegal to burn the flag in my country, but I recall that people have been arrested for disorderly conduct and whatnot after doing so.

In the end, though, it makes little difference to me whether it's legal or not. I'll still dislike it if it happens, and others will still want to do it as an act of protest.

I disgree that by desecrating the flag, that you oppose everything the flag stands for. I see it as a protest against what it is being done in its name. If abuses of human rights, and the removal of freedoms were being perpetrated in the name of the flag - that is as much of a desecration as the burning of it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

I personally don't mind if flag-burning is prohibited. It's a symbolic act of desecration, much like book-burning - including religious book-burning.

---

So what if you burn a book? It's amazing the importance people put on icons. I can't toss a Bible into a fire if I want? And a Quran? Many people have been tossed into the fire for those books, so hell, what if I buy those two books and burn them?

I don't mean I would do that, I am not Christian but I read the Bible and find it very interesting. I am even thinking of getting a Quran, after spending some nights reading medieval arab philosophy one becomes interested in such things. But if someone wants to do it, well, I can't find where the problem is. Same goes for flags. Someone even suggested using violence to defend a flag. What the hell? I can't see anything with hurting a piece of cloth, I do find it with someone hurting someone else. Since when does a piece of cloth- symbolic, but a piece of cloth- deserve more digity than a person?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Since when does a piece of cloth- symbolic, but a piece of cloth- deserve more digity than a person?

---

When it's the American flag, and when that person is lacking in dignity enough to burn the American flag.

It's another one of the legan vs. moral right things. Sure, legally, go ahead. If I find you doing it, I'll kick your ass, but you do have the legal right.

Nanashi-kun: What rules for respecting the flag say it's improper to put it on clothes? American soldiers wear the flag (the correct way, it's not "backwards") on our right shoulders. Who else are you talking about, and how is it against any regulations? (Although, once a Combat Patch is earned, it goes above the flag on the right shoulder, and that ain't right--the flag should be highest, the Combat Patch below.)

Ok, I'll agree to banning flag-burning when the amendment also bans slapping flag magnets on cars. And when they ban stores from flying tattered flags outside in the rain because they are too lazy to replace them, or even take them down in the rain.

I find it far more offensive that people are desecrating the flag by wearing it, which is expressly forbidden by the US Flag Code, than that people are "desecrating" the flag by burning it. I agree with Skogs:

Quote:

---

I disgree that by desecrating the flag, that you oppose everything the flag stands for. I see it as a protest against what it is being done in its name. If abuses of human rights, and the removal of freedoms were being perpetrated in the name of the flag - that is as much of a desecration as the burning of it is.

---

except that I see abuses of human rights and the removal of freedoms as more of a desecration than the burning of the flag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

...wearing it, which is expressly forbidden by the US Flag Code...

---

Where?

There are regulations on how to wear it, but none that I'm aware of that say we can't wear it.

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

Quote:

---

The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

Quote:

---

The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard.

---

---

As, slick, as. Not on. As in, nobody should sew clothes out of the flag, or drape themselves in a flag, etc. etc. It should tip you off that U.S. military wear flags on their uniforms--not as, but on--so it's most likely NOT forbidden.

I'm pretty sure as is metaphorical. So stuff like this wouldn't be allowed:

http://www.fools-gold.org/aaron/Flag_Desecration01.jpghttp://www.fools-gold.org/aaron/Flag_Desecration02.jpg

http://www.fools-gold.org/aaron/Flag_Desecration03.jpghttp://www.fools-gold.org/aaron/Flag_Desecration04.jpg

Is that President Bush writing on the flag? Oops.

I can understand why the two above pictures are illegal. People who dress like that should be shot on sight, no trial, no rights, no nothing, just a Magnum bullet through the skull and then a party. God, I mean...my eyes are burning.

Quote:

---

When it's the American flag, and when that person is lacking in dignity enough to burn the American flag.

It's another one of the legan vs. moral right things. Sure, legally, go ahead. If I find you doing it, I'll kick your ass, but you do have the legal right.

---

Good. Then you kiss the flag and sing the anthem while the twilight makes a wonderful cloudscape of burning clouds?

I don't like people waving flags, so I'll kick the ass of anyone who does so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Since when does a piece of cloth- symbolic, but a piece of cloth- deserve more digity than a person?

---

When it's the American flag, and when that person is lacking in dignity enough to burn the American flag.

It's another one of the legan vs. moral right things. Sure, legally, go ahead. If I find you doing it, I'll kick your ass, but you do have the legal right.

Nanashi-kun: What rules for respecting the flag say it's improper to put it on clothes? American soldiers wear the flag (the correct way, it's not "backwards") on our right shoulders. Who else are you talking about, and how is it against any regulations? (Although, once a Combat Patch is earned, it goes above the flag on the right shoulder, and that ain't right--the flag should be highest, the Combat Patch below.)

---

I'm with shadow on this its jsut a piece of cloth thats made out of fine linen and makes for great burning material.I mean it means something but it isn't as valueable as a human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

nasty muslims

---

Why has noone pointed out this blatant act of racism? I am deeply offended.

actually it wasn't racist at all. it was sardonism. if you noticed that part of the post was from an american point of view. it was meant not to be racist at all. and........ evenif it was my point of view it wouldn't be racist as it refers to nasty muslims, like you get nasty americans, nasty british, nasty jews, nasty slavs.

but it was meant to be tongue in cheek. sorry it's the way alot of my posts are written.

Then why post anything that could sound remotely racist, if there's any risk of offending anyone?

Besides, those 'muslims', among plenty of other people, burn the flag for the hatred that they have, for the injustices that the west has inflicted on them. They'd rather burn a flag than kill people. The people who burn flags are usually the peaceful ones, and that in no way is nasty. Yes I'm an Iraqi and I understand my culture, and flag burning is in no way something 'nasty muslims' do. You probably have no idea about the REAL 'nasty muslims' of this world.
Please do not jump to conclusions about other peoples' cultures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud No.9

actually it wasn't racist at all. it was sardonism. if you noticed that part of the post was from an american point of view. it was meant not to be racist at all. and........ evenif it was my point of view it wouldn't be racist as it refers to nasty muslims, like you get nasty americans, nasty british, nasty jews, nasty slavs.

but it was meant to be tongue in cheek. sorry it's the way alot of my posts are written.

---

Don't foreget the Irish, nasty Irish, thanks. I seen straight away that your muslem comment was sardonic btw.
On topic. The burning of any nations flag, if you are from that nation, can be hard to take & is not a pretty sight. Living in Belfast, I see it all the time, the Irish flag being burnt ontop the Protestant Bonfires along with an effigy of the Pope & Catholics, at times (I honestly don't see it that often) burn the Union Jack. The fact is, while it's hard to stomach, the flag burning itself should not & could not be a criminal offence. It's cloth with a certain colour scheme that represents a government ruling a particular land. It's not the country itself, or the people. We must try to remain logical about this & not let emotions take of rational thought.

Quote:

---

Why has noone pointed out this blatant act of racism? I am deeply offended.

---

I'm quite sure that people who burn a flag, anyone's flag, are nasty. And, if they happen to be Muslims, then they're nasty Muslims. 'Sides, I wouldn't want to see my flag burnt by someone... and that someone would get far worse names then 'nasty', if I happened to be there while he did it. After the name-calling, violence will ensue. I tend to take certain things quite personally. :)

I think the "nasty Muslims" comment was more sarcasm/satire than
racism. I can understand why you might be offended because many
Americans do see Muslims as nasty, but the way it was written seemed to
be making fun of those people who see Muslims as nasty.

In any case, the flag code also states that in order to dispose of an old
flag it should be burned. Woops.

.opt

Interesting Fact #162:
It was once custom that if an american flag was ever disgraced by touching the ground it could not be flown with the proper respec and must be burned.

He doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

He doesn't.

---

I figured that out and deleted it. It's late, sorry.

Hm... I think the issue here depends on exactly which country you're in. In the US, individual rights are supposed to be utterly paramount. Free speech, and whatnot. Given that system, it should be fine to burn flags. However, would that include the 'right' to burn a flag as a gesture of racial hatred? Like if some anti-Semite burned an Israeli flag during a neo-nazi rally. That's not a 'right' I'd like to see protected.

I'm in a country where people are far less uptight about these 'absolute' freedoms - for example, nobody's worried that our national anthem is "God Defend New Zealand" - so a non-flag-burninatory law wouldn't be such a big deal here.

Hachifusa, please don't say things like you did in the post you deleted. Disagreeing with someone's opinion is no reason to go after them personally:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Hm... I think the issue here depends on exactly which country you're in. In the US, individual rights are supposed to be utterly paramount. Free speech, and whatnot. Given that system, it should be fine to burn flags. However, would that include the 'right' to burn a flag as a gesture of racial hatred? Like if some anti-Semite burned an Israeli flag during a neo-nazi rally. That's not a 'right' I'd like to see protected.

I'm in a country where people are far less uptight about these 'absolute' freedoms - for example, nobody's worried that our national anthem is "God Defend New Zealand" - so a non-flag-burninatory law wouldn't be such a big deal here.

---

That's true. And I wouldn't want to see a neo-Nazi exist, much less burn a flag. But it's his right. The protection of individual rights is the main reason for government, so rights aren't to be taken lightly.

Quote:

---

Hachifusa, please don't say things like you did in the post you deleted. Disagreeing with someone's opinion is no reason to go after them personally:p

---

I'm abusing the fact that I no longer have to be an upstanding citizen. For years I told others to stop flaming people personally. So forgive me one shot, eh? =P (Oh, and I deleted it once I realized that I was breaking the rule anyway, not just that he doesn't live here. I was going to edit it so that it was still a personal attack while veiling it. I'm intelligent like that.)

i'm distinctly remembering an old episode of futurama where Zoidberg ate the flag to show his appreciation for his freedom to eat it. Then they persecuted him and the supreme court found him guilty. wow the future really sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

However, would that include the 'right' to burn a flag as a gesture of racial hatred? Like if some anti-Semite burned an Israeli flag during a neo-nazi rally. That's not a 'right' I'd like to see protected

---

Does it matter? Neo-nazis are going to express anti-semitism like it or not, because they are anti-semites. Does it matter if they do so by burning a flag, rather than by carrying around swastikas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nanashi-kun

i'm distinctly remembering an old episode of futurama where Zoidberg ate the flag to show his appreciation for his freedom to eat it. Then they persecuted him and the supreme court found him guilty. wow the future really sucks.

---

In the end the people learned to understand the meaning behind his actions and supported his beliefs, giving him another flag to eat.

"That IS a grand old flag" -Dr.Zoidberg

Any non-violent("peaceful") means or protest are constitutionally protected. This logically includes flag-burning.

The whole idea is absurd. It doesn't even deserve further consideration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

However, would that include the 'right' to burn a flag as a gesture of racial hatred? Like if some anti-Semite burned an Israeli flag during a neo-nazi rally. That's not a 'right' I'd like to see protected

---

Does it matter? Neo-nazis are going to express anti-semitism like it or not, because they are anti-semites. Does it matter if they do so by burning a flag, rather than by carrying around swastikas?

---

I guess my objection to flag-burning is because of personal disdain. I see it as a pointless gesture, designed to anger others rather than proving any kind of point. Just my opinion.

If flag burning is made illegal, then on the bright side, flag burning in protest will hold more meaning. People who burn flags after the passing of this amendment will be sacrificing their freedom (going to jail, I would imagine) to protest their loss of freedom. I've always thought that protesting without any personal risk has little value. People remember the illegal civil disobedience of MLK Jr, Rosa Parks and Ghandi, but noone remembers the names of the protesters that wave a sign and make a lot of noise on a street corner. This amendment will do more for the signifigance of flag burning than the politicians probably imagine. It'll make it actually mean something. As it stands now, flag burning is an impact-neutered publicity stunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

guess my objection to flag-burning is because of personal disdain. I see it as a pointless gesture, designed to anger others rather than proving any kind of point. Just my opinion.

---

I don't understand why. To me, it's just another form of protest. I don't like it because it really dosen't have much meaning to me, it's just pure folklore. As Garland says, if this got passed, then it would not be something empty, but defying the law. Then I would defend flag burning, because I could see the point perfectly.

Quote:

---

I guess my objection to flag-burning is because of personal disdain. I see it as a pointless gesture, designed to anger others rather than proving any kind of point. Just my opinion.

---

I don't like flag burning, but I recognize the right to express an opinion. I don't like communism, but I recognize the right of communists to have and to speak their beliefs.

A flag is private property, plain and simple. I don't understand people who would break their computers with a sledgehammer, but I recognize their right to own, to use, and to destroy their own property as they see fit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

guess my objection to flag-burning is because of personal disdain. I see it as a pointless gesture, designed to anger others rather than proving any kind of point. Just my opinion.

---

I don't understand why. To me, it's just another form of protest. I don't like it because it really dosen't have much meaning to me, it's just pure folklore. As Garland says, if this got passed, then it would not be something empty, but defying the law. Then I would defend flag burning, because I could see the point perfectly.

---

I see your point. I suppose the situation's different when you're talking about the removal of an existing right. In America, with civil rights issues being what they are, the removal of the flag-burning right could be seen as indicitive of a wider trend. On those grounds, I'd oppose that kind of law change.

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives...ngledBan-X.gif

Thats my view.

that's a good political cartoon.

Pretty accurate, too.

That's why it's good.

Aha. I was wondering why in the hell everyone liked the cartoon so much until I read the words on the lighter. I thought it was supporting banning the flag-burnings.