Should flag burning be illegal?

[Xyun]

Here we go again. Somali, you seem to be such a proponent of logic in your arguments? I too want arguments to be logical. But then I came across this little gem:

Just because you do not believe that, does not mean that you are not inflicting injury on those that do. Let me also clarify that I do not myself feel injured when I see someone burn a flag. I simply feel that these people are ignorant of how it affects many "good people." Just to make sure you flag burners out there don't misunderstand, if you didn't consider the fact that it has a negative affect on people who respect the flag and see it is a symbol of the men who gave their lives for "our freedom," then shame on you for not being considerate of others emotions. If you burn it knowing that it hurts others, and knowing that there are other perfectly valid ways to show disgust in the country, then you sir, are an asshole.

Is this how you defend your argument? You try to come off as being intelligent and logical, but when logic > you this is what you resort to: "you are hurting people's feelings, you asshole"

Maybe when I burn a flag, I am considering "good people's" feelings (lol). yes yes, shame on me!! SHAME SHAME SHAME!!! I have no moral values. By your logic here, we should make laws that make it illegal for me to call you a stupid fucking moron no matter how true it is.

God forbid I hurt your feelings you fucking pussy.

[Mitzey]

This story sums up my feelings on the flag burning issue. I wouldnt like to see someone buring our country's flag but the fact that they have the legal right to do so makes me proud to be a citizen of the United States.


FROM THE JULY 7, 1995 ISSUE
© 1995, The Daily Beacon. All rights reserved.


Flag stands for liberty, not fear of that liberty
ALAN L. LIGHT
Internet Reader, Iowa City, Ia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the editor:
People who want to "protect the flag" from physical desecration are confusing the symbol with what is symbolized. Burning a piece of cloth damages a piece of cloth. Putting restrictions on our precious First Amendment rights damages the most important rights of all.

Placing restrictions on unpopular political expression such as flag burning is itself "playing with fire." It is free speech which protects ALL of our rights. If the person burning the flag owns the flag, let him burn it. That has no affect on what the flag symbolizes.

I remember reading a story of an American POW in Vietnam who said his captors showed him a photograph of a man protesting the war by burning an American flag. The Vietnamese officer said, "See, people in your country protest your cause. This proves you are wrong." He replied, "No. That proves I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us."

Those in favor of a flag amendment just do not understand that the flag stands for liberty - not fear of liberty.


Alan L. Light is an Internet reader from Iowa City, Ia.

[Somali]

Woot Xyun. You've just gotten better at words out of context (102).
That paragraph was an aside.
I don't believe I ever said that it should be illegal because it hurts someones feelings. I simply said your an asshole if you knowingly do so with an understanding of how it affects others.

On another aside, it really doesn't hurt my feelings at all having someone call me a

stupid fucking moron

I am a bit more self confident than that.

I also fail to see how you have offered anything against my argument other than a diversionary tactic to draw the lurkers away from the point. Allow me to rephrase the context of my argument for you. I understand there is a lot to read in this thread so you likely overlooked it.

It seems people want to make this thread about censorship and whether it should be allowed or not. I believe the original statement was more in line with should it be allowed. ie Should we repeal the current laws.

People made the point that Flag burning is a matter of expression.
People seemed to feel that the government should not be the ones to regulate censorship because it is too open to interpretation.
They then said that We should allow censorship to protect a parents "right to choose".

I argued using the example of a nudist.
A nudist is censored from the public view and has to be confined to private communities. We are then censoring his right to express himself. (A portion of nudists believe that it is the natural state of being to be unclothed)
You can attempt to argue that it is for the betterment of society to keep this individual confined, but then you are censoring him.
Once you have allowed any degree of censorship, you must accept that your own personal views may not be the ones the populace deems worthy.


If this is still unclear please finish high school, then come back.

[Xyun]

I didn't overlook shit. You're a fucking spin doctor and I caught your ass. It's really fucking simple, this thread is not about anything other than FLAG BURNING. You can bring a hundred fucking examples of things we censor and don't censor and we all know they fucking exist. You think by pointing out the obvious you are being fucking logical??

Let me get you back on track there Dr. Needledick.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT CENSORSHIP IN GENERAL.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT CENSORSHIP APPLIED TO THE BURNING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG.

Now let me show you the four posts you made in direct response to the topic of the thread:

Flag burning should not be illegal. That being said, the fine for someone beating the hell out of a flag burner should be somewhere in the vicinity of a quarter.
If your freedom of speech entitiles you to burn a flag, then mine entitles me to pummel you into the ground and set your ass on fire directly thereafter.

Maybe it's just flame bait, or maybe there are some psychological issues. Let's continue to see if we can find more...

Let us be clear about something as well. Those of you that believe in a euphoric society where there are no rules, no regulations about what people can or cannot do, yet everyone is a member of the "Shiny, Happy People" club are obviously on some seriously good halucinagen. There are a certain degree of limitations that need to be placed on peoples freedoms regardless of what society you are in. Should one of those be burning a flag? I don't care all that much. There is a very large component of our population that believes this is a dire insult to their personal beliefs. Are those of you who support flag burning really so deadened to other peoples emotions and belief structures that you intentionally defile them in such a way? Can you really tell me that not allowing someone to burn a symbol of their country damages their state of mind in some way shape or form?

hahahhahahahahaahhahahahhahaha

that second bold part is really fucking funny, and that is where your vaginaesque philosophy starts peeking through.

And I still stand by the fact that you are inflicting injury on the state of mind of people who look at the flag as a symbol of our country, something that they fought to defend. If you are an insensitive ass that can't see that perhaps you do need to have your ass beat for burning a flag after all. Some people only learn through negative reinforcment.

I AM PUSSY!! HEAR ME ROAR!!!

I think the fundamental difference is that for those that see the flag as a symbol, a flag is something that belongs to all of us This statement alone makes you a grade A moron. It is fairly well accepted that the flag is a symbol of our country and/or the men that gave their lives to "protect" it. Just because you do not believe that, does not mean that you are not inflicting injury on those that do. Let me also clarify that I do not myself feel injured when I see someone burn a flag. I simply feel that these people are ignorant of how it affects many "good people." Just to make sure you flag burners out there don't misunderstand, if you didn't consider the fact that it has a negative affect on people who respect the flag and see it is a symbol of the men who gave their lives for "our freedom," then shame on you for not being considerate of others emotions. If you burn it knowing that it hurts others, and knowing that there are other perfectly valid ways to show disgust in the country, then you sir, are an asshole. Albeit one within his rights as they currently stand.

If you really don't care then why would you want them to get beaten up?


We've established that there are numerous things that get censored. The above is all of the debate you provided as to why flag burning should be censored, and all of it has to do with your pusillanimous attitude. Now please provide a logical argument of why flag burning should be legal or illegal (because your stance now is ambiguous). And remember, you're fucking with a pro, bitch.

[Kaelye]

I don't like flag burning in certain contexts, i.e. watching university students burning flags chanting "America sucks" for X reason...but whatever floats their boat. I don't think it should be illegal.

Real problem happens when a flag touches the ground and it must be disposed. If flag burning is illegal it leaves people with little choice and most would just throw them in the garbage -- which I feel is even more disgraceful.

[Axien_Dellusions]

Freedom of speach baby! I don't agree with burning the flag but it our right as Americans to do so.

[Somali]

Xyun,
I see you believe that I did not target the issue at hand. Allow me to clarify something for you as you are obviously incapable of drawing conclusions for yourself.

* Flag burning should be illegal because it should not be covered by freedom of speech.
* There is nothing verbal about burning a flag regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court has deemed flag burning to fall within this clause.
* "Censoring" flag burning is no different that "censoring" a nudist from walking nude in public areas. Both are matters of physical expression.
* And as you put it.. there is always the "pussirific" point that not burning the flag is a matter of compassion towards those in this country that still feel it means something.

* The reason that I changed to censorship in general is that this thread began to derail into a "We should keep flag burning legal because censorship is bad, mmmkay..." thread. That was the only real argument that was made for flag burning. I targetted the argument and shot holes in it. That is the idea of a debate by the way, to present your case and to show how the other side is faulty. The closest you were able to come to this was to say my arguments were those of a sissy. Wow.. that sure shows my argument as invalid. You da man.

Since you are so up on the topic Mr. Assmonkey, why don't you tell me why it should be legal. I have yet to here a valid argument for that side of the case.


PS thanks to Xyun for Sekret Farm

[miir]

* Flag burning should be illegal because it should not be covered by freedom of speech.

* There is nothing verbal about burning a flag regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court has deemed flag burning to fall within this clause.


The first amendment not only coveres freedom of speech, but also freedom of expression and religion. The physical act of burning a flag, since it does not violate any federal or state laws is covered under freedom of expression.


* "Censoring" flag burning is no different that "censoring" a nudist from walking nude in public areas. Both are matters of physical expression.

See above, the act of 'walking nude in a public area' violates federal and/or state law.




Flag burning is primarily used as a political expression and does not violate any existing law.

If laws were to be passed making flag burning illegal, it would set a rather scary precedent.
Any time someone is offended by another's actions, weather it be the use of profanity, picking your nose in public or the wearing of a garment with language or images that could be deemed offensive... If they make flag burning illegal, what's to stop them from making any of these other actions illegal?

The first amendment was put in for this reason.

The government should never have absolute power over censorship of personal expression.

[Krimson Klaw]

I am shocked that people actually made those statements that you quoted, Miir. That's just amazing.

[Somali]

Krimson and Miir,

Please cut and paste where the first ammendment refers to freedom of expression. I'm a lazy bastard and don't feel like looking. It is my impression that Freedom of expression is a matter of interpretation, albiet an interpretation made by our supreme court, making it law.

See above, the act of 'walking nude in a public area' violates federal and/or state law.

If burning the flag were made illegal, would it not also be a violation of Federal/State law. The only difference between the two is in peoples perception. Your perception says that nude in public is against the common good, whereas burning a flag is not. This is not eeryone's perception. Some nudists believe that being nude is the natural state of being. If they had their way, everyone would be nude. By limiting them to certain area that they can express their nudeness, you are censoring them. You censor them in the same way you would censor an individual by not allowing them to burn a flag.

As for who makes the laws on censorship, the government already has control over what is and is not censored. This is the case if we assume a censorship of a persons self expression. What differentiates what is harmful and what is not in someones freedom of expression. Certainly different people have different views. There has to be a common ground. The government is used to determine what is acceptable censorship and what is not. The things that are deemed unacceptable become the communities, or parents or individual's right to censor. Nearly every law we have infringes on some individuals right to self expression. Most of these I strongly agree with. If someone decides his right to express himself is to cut people into tiny pieces and make "artforms" out of them, I would like to step on his right to self expression. If someone wants to walk around nude in public I want us to remove his right for self expression.

The current standing of the law says that flag burning is an acceptable matter of self expression. Therefore it is currently accepted that it will not be censored. If it is to be made illegal it should be based on popular public consensus. It should be changed via legal precedence. That decision then should be enforced by the goernment.

If you are really so bothered by your country that you feel the need to burn your countries symbol, then there are many other countries you can live in. This is not limited to the United States. I would feel the same way if the French burned their flags or the Canadians or whoever. If you wish to live in your country and change the way the government works, then this is not the best way to go about it.

Damn that got long..

[miir]

If burning the flag were made illegal, would it not also be a violation of Federal/State law. The only difference between the two is in peoples perception

What it comes down to is setting a precedent.

Flag burning is a means of experessing ones dissatisfation with thier country/government. If it were to be made illegal, then it sets a precedent where any political expression could be made illegal.

Where do you draw the line?
How is flag burning different from picketing, protesting or writing an anti-government essay?
What about the political pundits who make their living off of political commentary? I may not agree with people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh but I defend their right to say whatever the hell they want.

The US is a democracy and if you take away the right for a citizen to express their dissatisfaction with the government (be it flag burning, protests or in print) it ceases to be a true democracy.

If you are really so bothered by your country that you feel the need to burn your countries symbol, then there are many other countries you can live in. This is not limited to the United States. I would feel the same way if the French burned their flags or the Canadians or whoever. If you wish to live in your country and change the way the government works, then this is not the best way to go about it.

I agree that it's not the best way to go about it but the sentiment is the same.





By the way, this is probably the most civil debate I've ever seen on this forum. I suspect you're just playing devils advocate but you're bringing up some pertinent points.

[miir]

Here's a link for ya....


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons ... endment01/

[Somali]

Miir,

I actually think you are the first one that has understood the argument. The Constitution itself says nothing in regards to freedom of expression however. Freedom of expression is something that is assumed within limits. Those limits in regards to the flag burning are defined per Supreme Court precedence. I do not recall the case. I think we can create a clear line between picketing protesting and essay based on the fact that you are not defacing a government symbol. That is the key difference between the flag and these other methods. I understand the point that you all have made and the fact that this can be viewed as a slippery slope. Understand that I mean that flag burning should only be made illegal if it is popular opninion opposing the burning of the flag. As you said this is a Democracy. I was simply giving the viewpoint from the other side of the fence with what I had hoped to be a more articulated argument. Well thats what I started to do after I initially attempted to incite a riot..

[Xyun]

* Flag burning should be illegal because it should not be covered by freedom of speech.

This is idiotic. This is like saying I can't burn my old clothes because it is not a freedom given to me by the first amendment.

* There is nothing verbal about burning a flag regardless of whether or not the Supreme Court has deemed flag burning to fall within this clause.

I agree. However:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

I think that covers it.

* "Censoring" flag burning is no different that "censoring" a nudist from walking nude in public areas. Both are matters of physical expression.

I agree and thusly, I could argue that people should be allowed to walk around in the nude. Nude communities do exist, and maybe one day, they will cry out for their right to walk among us naked, and if they do, I will support them.

* And as you put it.. there is always the "pussirific" point that not burning the flag is a matter of compassion towards those in this country that still feel it means something.

There are so many flaws in this argument that it makes me dizzy. First of all, just because you have sentimental feelings towards my property doesn't mean that I do or should. Secondly, I hardly think "compassion" should be a matter of law. If this argument is taken to its extreme, it could be said that saying please and thank you should become a matter of law.


Now let me see if I can make this as elementary for you as possible...


freedom > symbols of freedom

[Somali]

Well if you are willing to support Nudists walking our streets then I really have no argument for you Xyun. Gratz to you for being a true "freedoms fighter." I prefer seeing people clothed for the most part.
And to your quotes. Based on your interpretation of them you are correct. You can define flag burning as pursuit of liberty. Then again, you could define walking up to someone and pissing on them an act of liberty as well. Technically, in pissing on them you haven't harmed them. After all, urine is in fact sterile upon exiting the body, so you are really just helping them to clean their clothes off with a bit of ammonia. You'd be acting as a kind citizen. Alternatively, if everyone were walking round nude, it would be like giving them a bath.
The constitution requires a bit of interpretation at any level. It is not a document to be read literally as the definition of words has evolved over the years. This is where those of you who support Freedom of Expression have grounds to toss it in with the statement of Freedom of Speech. Laws are put into place that violate this "Freedom of Expression," in order to "protect the innocent." Do they encroach on personal liberties? Yessir absolutely! But, they are considered to be for the common good.