US moves to make flag-burning illegal

bonkey

I noticed in a link off google news today that the US are once again addressing the issue of flag-burning and whether or not it is a crime.

In 1989, this was declared by the Supreme Court to be protected under the principles of Freedom of Speech. However, its something that the conservatives in the Senate have tried on more than one occasion to reverse through a constitutional amendment.

Personally, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court decision of '89 - that it shouldn't be illegal. When I read this article, I remember thinking back to the first time I saw the "bring it on" speech from Michael Douglas in the otherwise-utterly-forgettable "An American President", where he defends someone on this very issue.

Freedom is a double-edged sword - it means we sometimes allow people to do stuff we don't like. Sometimes its stuff we really don't like. To me, this is a logical extension of the "with us or against us" mentality, the "criticism == anti-American / unpatriotic" mindset, and its a potentially worrying first step in a very dangerous direction. I'm not suggesting that anyone is going to start serious legal suppression of the right to protest, but from my outside perspective it does appear that there is a growing body of sentiment in the US which is making - or trying to make - protesting more and more of a "dirty" concept.

It'll be interesting to see if this gets through - the linked-to article at least suggests that its pretty close. Should it get through, the media frenzy - or lack thereof - could be very entertaining indeed.

I'm also interested in finding out if its only the US flag which will be protected...if anyone has any other sources?

jc

Saruman

Oh i thought it was illegal.. like burning money and people and stuff like that

Hobbes

I am curious.. could anyone explain the point of this? So a flag gets burned? Whats the big deal? (unless that flag is wrapped around a kid or something).

Fearo

well I wouldnt like to see someone burning an Irish Flag!

Mighty_Mouse

well I wouldnt like to see someone burning an Irish Flag!

Id respect they're right to do it though. Usually its done as a protest against a country. Its the right to protest.

Fearo

well you can go ahead and give them respect, Id be ready with a big bucket of water!!!

bonkey

Bucket of water, fine.

Arrest, court-case, potential fining/imprisonment of those who did the lighting/burning?

Very few people (except possibly those doing the burning) like seeing their nation's flag burned. The issue, though, isn't whether or not you like it. Its whether or not it should be legal.

jc

BlitzKrieg

Yahoo news earlier had an interesting article on how unlikely the motion will make it through the senate...but now there is a new article saying that the democrats feel it is very likely to pass...

ahh here we go.

old article: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/flag_burning;_ylt=Annz_.NY.O2cJ7fH24Baf_iMwfIE;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5) where it is stated that the needed majority to oppose the motion in the senate is opposing it.

while here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_co/politics_of_the_flag;_ylt=AraNS0aUv5N.Fkaa.FPS3Sms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

the democrats feel that the motion will be pushed through simple because the republicans will use the motion against them in future elections.



I understand the reasoning behind the bill, but there are elements of it that i dont like. Primarily the question of "Why" someone is burning a national flag. the Government and the public will both be able to ignore this and move directly to the crime and punishment.

ixoy

Indeed noone likes their flag being burnt - it feels as if that person is directly spitting in the face of what you feel your country is. It'd engender a lot of hatred (isn't that right Mr. Paisley!).

However, as much as I can understand people's anger over it, I really don't think it should be a crime. If people feel strongly about someone burning a flag, they can ostracize them from - fine. To make it illegal basically removes your right to a freedom of expression. Is it flag burning in company that's going to be banned or in all cases? Because the former could be argued on the grounds that it incites hatred/violence towards the burner but the latter is a far more serious problem because it's basically arguing that the person must respect the US and cannot criticize what it, through a flag, represents. From there, it's a few more steps to eroding people's right to vocally criticize and that, surely, is one of the things the US has always prided itself on - free speech.

Hobbes

I think people get worked up on symbols too much. Ok so someone hates "my" country. How is this different then someone having a placard or t-shirt that says "[country x] are ****" ?

Also I assume they have it written to show intent. I'd hate to save someones life by wrapping them in an american flag to put out a fire only to have to go to jail for it.

BlitzKrieg

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 by two-thirds of those present in each chamber, then ratified within seven years by at least 38 state legislatures.

the exact wording

Hobbes

Well according that wording you wouldn't be allowed wear clothes with the flag on them?

the_syco

ixoy wrote:

is one of the things the US has always prided itself on - free speech.

This stopped when Bush came into power.

toiletduck

song from the simpsons:
"there are a lot of flag burners
who have got too much freedom
we wana make it easier for policemen to beat 'em!"

i think while it may be disrespectful and unpleasant, it shouldn't be illegal. How would you define a flag anyway? what if i had a cup with the stars and stripes on it or a tea towel with the same? would i get a prison term for throwing them away or buring the towel?

Meh

the_syco wrote:

This stopped when Bush came into power.

Yes, that's why Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky ended up in jail for criticizing George Bush.

Speaking of George Bush, I think he might end up in jail himself if this amendment passes:

Hobbes

Meh wrote:

Yes, that's why Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky ended up in jail for criticizing George Bush.

In fairness now there are way to deal with people who disagree with you. You can certainly find instances of both people being blacklisted or having information posted about them which is incorrect or downright lying.

Add to that "Free speech zones".

murphaph

toiletduck wrote:

...How would you define a flag anyway? what if i had a cup with the stars and stripes on it or a tea towel with the same? would i get a prison term for throwing them away or buring the towel?

Remember this....

During a previous World Cup, there was lots of upset arguing about a McDonalds promotion that involved their bags showing the flags of the competing nations. Saudi Arabia had gotten through to the finals, and their flag features a verse of the Koran. Since the McDonalds bag is designed to be thrown away, this went down badly with the Saudi government.

Source

Flags are just used to divide and conquer the lower echelons of this world. Burning them is of no consequence to me and it certainly should not be a crime.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

Well according that wording you wouldn't be allowed wear clothes with the flag on them?

Pedantically, according to that wording, Congress would have the ability to pass legislation which would make it illegal to wear clothes with the flag on them.

But yes...allowing Congress to define what constitutes desecration notionally means that its far from just flag-burning that could be legislated against.

jc

bonkey

the_syco wrote:

This stopped when Bush came into power.

Which did? The pride in Freedom of Speech, or the Freedom of Speech itself?

I cant' see that either stopped when Bush came into power, personally. The former is still mostly there, and the latter has simply changed in nature under Bush's tenure as it has under others in the past, and will no doubt again in the future.

F'r example....I recall reading about this bloke called McCarthy who had some witch-hunts going about a half-century ago which - in my book at least - leaves Mr. Bush and his crew firmly in the penny-ante league.

jc

jman0

bonkey wrote:

F'r example....I recall reading about this bloke called McCarthy who had some witch-hunts going about a half-century ago which - in my book at least - leaves Mr. Bush and his crew firmly in the penny-ante league.

jc

Yes but that McCarthy was only a Senator that had the ear of the head of the FBI. He wasn't the Commader in Chief.

Victor

I can understand banning it on incitement grounds, but well, incitement legislation should cover that, not anti-symbol desecration legislation.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

seamus

I would be of the opinion that oppressing a person who is burning a flag only serves to prove their point/draw sympathy.

Memnoch

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

exactly the topic is about the removing of rights of protest in the US, not rights we may/may not have in ireland.

No one here has mentioned ireland so why do you bring it up as a red herring? This is a common and weak debating tool to throw up something else that's different/worse and somehow use that as an example of justification.

Let's argue the US system on it's own merits not compared to someone else. Sure doesn't the US have better freedom of speech rights than Saudi Arabia, god it must be O K then!!!!!!!one

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Funny. It would seem to me that losses of freedom in the more-free would be a bigger issue then loss of freedom in the less-free.

Lets say (for argument's sake) that the US is the most free country in the world. I think abrogation of freedom in such a nation is of far more concern than an abrogation of freedom in almost any other nation as it lowers the overall "best standard" that anyone has to compare themselves to.

Its a bit like arguing that a decrease in the standard of living in the nation with teh highest standard of living isn't significant because they're the highest, when in reality, its highly significant because it - again - lowers the bar that anyone else will aim at.

If people actually believed in absolutes - that a country's freedom/wealth/standard of living/whatever was not an issue of comparison, but rather one of absolutes, then sure...changes to the US wouldn't perhaps be as significant. Of course, if we believed in absolutes, we wouldn't be having this discussion about how Ireland is (allegedly) worse off.

On the actual topic I don't really think it should be banned as it is an erosion of freedom,

...but will criticise others for saying more or less exactly the same thing because they didn't complani that someone / they were worse off in the first place.

but God I'd love to get to the point where the banning of the burning of the Irish flag was the erosion of free speech we were dealing with in Ireland, not the fact that there is a multitude of restrictions on freedom in Ireland.

There's a multitude of restrictions on freedom in every country. If you're going to make broad sweeping generalisations about how one is much worse off than the other - topic-relevant or not - then the least you could do is actually give us a real example. I'm actually finding it quite difficult to come up with one.

jc

Hobbes

I wonder if you painted your house in a stars and stripes would it stop them from destroying it (there by removing you from it) due to eminent domain.

Nuttzz

The yanks see their flags being burnt all over the world, just look at any mid east protest, the israeli and us flags are always being torched, so i can undertsand why they dont want it on their doorstep.

tbh I feel a bit sick when I see an irish tricolour sit on top of a loyalists bonfire every july 11th... burning a national flag is a sign of disrepect to all people of that country and an incitment to hatred, if I was to burn the proposed traveller flag (see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=262688) would I be classed as a bigot or just expressing my opinion?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I was hoping thats the line you'd go down.

Care to comment on cases suich as the one Kevin Smith lost for making fun of lesbians in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back - a comedy that was irreverand about just about everything?

The defamation laws in the US would seem to give you freedom of speech ion this regard as long as you're willing to pay hard cash for it.

(example could you see white supremist groups being legally able to operate here)

Yes, I could. The major difference I'd see is that in Ireland, a group like the KKK would be made illegal once there was a sufficient body of criminal action that they had comitted seperate to the exercise of freedom of speech.

Actually even think about how legally restricive boards.ie is in terms of removing content such as how to break locks etc. In the US that would definitely be covered under the freedom of speech.

Do the names Jon Lech Johansen or Dmitry Sklyarov ring any bells?

jc

Meh

bonkey wrote:

Care to comment on cases suich as the one Kevin Smith lost for making fun of lesbians in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back - a comedy that was irreverand about just about everything?

Haven't heard anything about this, do you have a link? Google doesn't turn anything about a lawsuit, just about Kevin Smith donating $10,000 to a gay charity after a gay advocacy group criticized the film's use of "gay" as an insult. http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,8621,00.html

Jon Lech Johansen

You mean Jon Lech Johansen, the Norwegian citizen who was arrested in Norway by Norwegian police and prosecuted under Norwegian law in a Norwegian court? As for Sklyarov, note that 1) the charges were dropped and 2) Ireland has similar legislation to the DMCA under the EU Copyright Directive.

Zombrex

Nuttzz wrote:

if I was to burn the proposed traveller flag (see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=262688) would I be classed as a bigot or just expressing my opinion?

Both ... thats the point, it shouldn't be illegal to have a bigoted opinion, only to act on it in a way that harms others (ie discrimination)

ItalianStallion

People who burn our flag make me sick. they're either muslim terror sponsors, communists or some other fringe leftwing group. im growing a bit sick of them both. if they want to do that in this country, we have somthing to learn from how de gall delt with the coal mine strike (funny that we have somthing to learn from modern french history besides that the french are cowards). when they were on strike, he conscripted them to the army, to work in the coal mines. well done charlie!
on this note, i think a proper punishment for flag/draft card burners should be conscription to the army.

Calina

ItalianStallion wrote:

People who burn our flag make me sick. they're either muslim terror sponsors, communists or some other fringe leftwing group.

Met them all personally, have you?

Boggle

funny that we have somthing to learn from modern french history besides that the french are cowards

Links please...

Thats insulting to any French people that might post on boards.ie - how would you like it if I were to say that "Americans are ignorant, self-serving pricks??".
Not nice when someone digs at you over your nationality is it??

Mods: I'm just trying to make a point here - not trying to insult americans or any other posters on boards.

bonkey

ItalianStallion wrote:

im growing a bit sick of them both.

What has your approval got to do with whether or not it is a legitimate application of the principle of Freedom of Expression?

if they want to do that in this country,

Would that be Ireland, or America?

If the want to do it in America, then they can do so in accordance with the Supreme Court finding in 1989 that it was legal, and again in 1990 when they ruled that Bush Snrs act to protect the flag was unconstitutional.

we have somthing to learn from how de gall delt with the coal mine strike

Well, fair enough. Clearly your on the Bush's side, which says that it should be illegal. Care to explain why it should be illegal for an American to burn an American flag, in the Land of the Free and all of that?

jc

Meh

ItalianStallion wrote:

People who burn our flag make me sick. they're [...] muslim terror sponsors...
.....
on this note, i think a proper punishment for flag/draft card burners should be conscription to the army.

So you think that giving "muslim terror sponsors" access to and training with highly destructive military weapons is a good idea? I don't think you've thought that one through....

ItalianStallion

Boggle wrote:

Links please...

Thats insulting to any French people that might post on boards.ie - how would you like it if I were to say that "Americans are ignorant, self-serving pricks??".
Not nice when someone digs at you over your nationality is it??

Mods: I'm just trying to make a point here - not trying to insult americans or any other posters on boards.

google search "french military victories"

ItalianStallion

Meh wrote:

So you think that giving "muslim terror sponsors" access to and training with highly destructive military weapons is a good idea? I don't think you've thought that one through....

i would have fought side by side with obl against the communists. communism was the greatest threat of the last century. do you really think european nations selling weapons to the greatest human rights abuser on the planet (china) is a good idea?

sceptre

ItalianStallion wrote:

google search "french military victories"

I found 15,200 pages. Funnily enough when I searched for "american military victories" it gave me a mere 182. So, apart from trying to use a parody page (which can be explained at least in part by this) in what purports to be a serious discussion from you, is there anything apart from some pseudo-nationalistic jingoism masquerading as racism masquerading as a serious point that you are actually willing to contribute to push the debate forward rather than into the special place I keep for "special" arguments proposed by people?

Memnoch

ItalianStallion wrote:

i would have fought side by side with obl against the communists. communism was the greatest threat of the last century. do you really think european nations selling weapons to the greatest human rights abuser on the planet (china) is a good idea?

communism was an ideal, nothing more. It was a poorely executed and much exploited ideal just as religion is in today's time and has been throughout history.

More relevant is how the ideal of democracy is being manipulated and misused in a way as bad if not worse than that which communism was. At the end of the day though, these are just political systems, it's people's misuse that causes problems.

Also I fail to see what china has to do with burning of the US flag by americans?

Right now I find patriotism to be another big problem in our society as it's used as an excuse to stiffle important debate and to discriminate for some to gain unfair advantages over others. As such it's not something we seem to be able to deal with in a healthy way and this whole flag burning business takes this further in the wrong direction.

Lastly, I think the sooner people realise that these great enemies such as communism and now terrorism are more figments of the creation of the rich and powerful so that they may maintain their status quo rather than real threats is the day these enemies will truly be defeated.

Tolerance is the only way even if it does mean I have to listen to the insane ramblings of the current american administration. I suppose that's another topic for another thread though.

Victor

sceptre wrote:

ItalianStallion wrote:

google search "french military victories"

I found 15,200 pages. Funnily enough when I searched for "american military victories" it gave me a mere 182. So, apart from trying to use a parody page (which can be explained at least in part by this) in what purports to be a serious discussion from you, is there anything apart from some pseudo-nationalistic jingoism masquerading as racism masquerading as a serious point that you are actually willing to contribute to push the debate forward rather than into the special place I keep for "special" arguments proposed by people?

Hey, ItalianStallion, http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&biw=1259&q=%22Italian+military+victories%22&meta= :rolleyes:

And anyway http://tar.weatherson.net/archives/000259.html

No offence TC.

Nuttzz

Memnoch wrote:

Lastly, I think the sooner people realise that these great enemies such as communism and now terrorism are more figments of the creation of the rich and powerful so that they may maintain their status quo rather than real threats is the day these enemies will truly be defeated.

how was the russian revolution a creation of the rich and powerful?

how was 9/11 a creation of the rich and powerful?


Selected french quotes...

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." --- Jacques Chirac, President of France.
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." --- Rush Limbaugh

BlitzKrieg

lenin changed socialism...so instead of worker revolution we had one elitist replace another...

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

how was 9/11 a creation of the rich and powerful?

Allowed laws to be steamrolled in that keeps the rich and powerful in a position of power. Do you need examples?

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." --- General George S. Patton

Patton never actually said that.

As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." --- Jacques Chirac, President of France.
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." --- Rush Limbaugh

Hmm quoting Chirac out of context is supposed to equate for something? Coming from the possibly one of the biggest hypocrites in the world (Rush).

Please try harder.

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

Allowed laws to be steamrolled in that keeps the rich and powerful in a position of power. Do you need examples?

how was 9/11 created by the rich and powerful is my question, not how they used it.

Patton never actually said that.

sadly we will never get to ask him what he thought....

Hmm quoting Chirac out of context is supposed to equate for something? Coming from the possibly one of the biggest hypocrites in the world (Rush).

not really, some times this forum needs a counter point. some people here could do with lightening up a bit

Please try harder.

a hypocrite? one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter et al.

Memnoch

9/11 specifically? well if you want to go into the motivations behind it then it all stretches back to american foreign policy motivated by the greed of those in power backed by wealthy arms manufacturers, oil barons etc. Then off course the whole un-wavering support of the actions of the israeli government throughout it's numerous war crimes.

More recently you can see the whole "war on terror" tm. which IS a manufactured commodity, I mean they attacked iraq which they've admitted never had any links to terrorism, first talking about WMD's and then talking about terrorism and how it's part of the war on terror and all this nonsense.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the bush administration or at least a select few within it knew this would happen and allowed it to take place, because they are the ones who HAVE gained the most and have had the most to gain from 9/11. Allowing them to introduce ridiculous laws, boost their political standing and gain huge profits, declare obviously immoral and illegal wars. Allowing them to build a gas pipeline through Afghanasthan by replacing one fundamentalist muslim regime with another, and now the plundering of iraq.

So yes these things are figments created by the rich and powerful to maintain their rule through the use of fear and blind ignorance, and there is pleanty of gullable ignorance arround that buys into the nonsense they spew on a daily basis.

Also Rush limbaugh is nothing more than a hate inciting racist scumbag. Nothing he says is of any value whatsoever as far as i'm concerned. This isn't about perspective or opinion this is about the statements he has made and continues to make on his sorry excuse for a radio show. But yes I suppose to people in the KKK he is a freedom fighter.

http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/ is a good starting point to learn about this great american hero.

Nuttzz

Memnoch wrote:

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if the bush administration or at least a select few within it knew this would happen and allowed it to take place, because they are the ones who HAVE gained the most and have had the most to gain from 9/11.

I find it hard to believe that the american administration would allow 3000 plus people to die for their own benefit.

9/11 was a slaughter and the laws passed were in reaction to it, so if there was no 9/11 these laws wouldnt come into place. the idea that they would allow a slaughter like this is laughable

Memnoch wrote:

Nothing he says is of any value whatsoever as far as i'm concerned

goes back to my statement "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter."

personally I have no time for racists bigots etc but at the same time I have no time for people who pi$$ and moan about how the world has kicked them in the arse. I was talking to a shop owner only yesterday who was complaining that the "darkies" were opening a shop beside his and they would "lower the tone of the place." Personally I welcome immigrants who come over here and open their own businesses, they arent sitting around waiting for handouts like some of the "locals."

Social justice is a noble cause but the only person who is going to improve your lot is yourself, if your waiting around for governments or charities to create equality you will be waiting a lifetime.

Memnoch

Nuttzz wrote:

I find it hard to believe that the american administration would allow 3000 plus people to die for their own benefit.

9/11 was a slaughter and the laws passed were in reaction to it, so if there was no 9/11 these laws wouldnt come into place. the idea that they would allow a slaughter like this is laughable

nonsense. We are talking about an administration that has lied repeatedly and showed little or NO concern for the value of human life, american or otherwise.

People in THIS very administration supported Saddam for many years while he committed countless atrocities.

This administration lied about everything, from WMD to links of terrorism so they could conduct this obviously pre-meditated war of greed and profit. How many american soldiers lost their lives and how many thousand more were maimed for life? How many innocent iraqi's have died to american bombardment, have you forgotten about the flattening of entire iraqi cities such as fallujah? The average person's life means nothing to this administration, hell they didn't even bother to keep a count of how many civillians they slaughtered.

There are people like this everywhere and in all walks of society who will think nothing of the value of another person's life especially not when it come to their own greed. There have been dictators and corrupt governments throughout the world throghout history, there are criminals and drug lords today who would act thus.

So why is it that somehow the bush administration is an angel of purity that cannot possibly have such people within it? Where does this assumption come from?

It seems to me, that you are making the assumption that they are good and then seeing all their actions in that light and making excuses for their crimes.

Whereas if one were to objectively take the assumption that starting out they are neither good nor evil, and judge their actions past and present on the merit of the actions alone, it becomes blatently obvious just how corrupt, selfish and greedy they really are.

3,000 ordinary people mean nothing to them. These are the elite, they are better than everyone and if a few pawns must be sacrificed that they may mould the world more to their pleasure, then it's not even worth a 2nd thought to them.

perhaps you should read up a bit more about the neo-con political ideology and what it stems from.

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/49/articles/leo_strauss/noflash.html

Memnoch

personally I have no time for racists bigots etc but at the same time I have no time for people who pi$$ and moan about how the world has kicked them in the arse.

good then you should have no time for Rush limbaugh either since that's what he so obviously and unashamedly is.

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

how was 9/11 created by the rich and powerful is my question, not how they used it.

You mean the rich and powerful dicking around in other countries political affairs which ultimately caused 9/11.

sadly we will never get to ask him what he thought....

No I am saying he never said that. It is a bogus quote. If you think otherwise please quote your source (I went through a load of pages to find the context to the quote and found out its not real).

a hypocrite? one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter et al.

I haven't a clue what you are on about but Rush is a hypocrite. Go read up on the drug addicts views before and after he got caught. Or prehaps getting a bill killed that would balance radio for the US troops citing "Censorship" when in fact that was what he was doing. Or if you just want to go with slime, him dumping his wife for his mistress while she was on her hospital bed being treated for cancer. Or prehaps his views on AIDS.

Lil bit off topic.

Hobbes

Nuttzz wrote:

I find it hard to believe that the american administration would allow 3000 plus people to die for their own benefit.

9/11 was a slaughter and the laws passed were in reaction to it, so if there was no 9/11 these laws wouldnt come into place. the idea that they would allow a slaughter like this is laughable

Would never happen in the US?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Btw CIA refer to these sort of things as "Fund raisers".