Flag Burning

[Sir_Mister]

I've noticed this seems to be a very touchy subject, so I thought I would bring it up and see what everyone on bluemoon thinks.

Should flag burning be illegal?

Personally, I believe flag burning is protected under free speech. A flag is a piece of cloth, and a symbol. Nothing more. And symbols only have power if you give it to them. As you can see, I am all about freedom of speech and believe that everyone should be able to express themselves, even if its offensive. I'd rather be offended but totally free than not be offended but told what I can or can't say.

"Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms, a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . ." - Texas v. Johnson

I can not agree with flag burning, not an America flag by an American. Yes it may be made of just cloth and yes its a symbol, but omg I can not count how many American Soldiers died for what THAT flag stands for, which includes freedom of speech which you support. The only way I wish to see an American flag burned is when is is torn up and needs to be destroyed. Yes I was once in the service, but my belief of not burning a flag comes before that, but I understand more about what the flag represents after doing my duty in the service.

Then burning that flag seems like it's almost out of respect to soldiers.

Fighting for free speech means fighting for the free speech of people saying things you don't like as well, protesting in peaceful ways that you don't like.

Do not see how burning the flag is out of respect to the soldiers. Burning the flag is done out of disrespect to America, or for some reason the burner is not happy with. To me when you burn the American flag you say a big Fuck You to those who died defending that flag.

 

[Mr Master]

Or maybe, here's a thought, you're saying that the powers that control America that you're protesting have reduced the meaning and value of the flag to make it no better than kindling.

Coming from your persepctive, I can understand your point of view. No question that's what it means, to you. On the other hand, I would prefer to think the soldiers fought and died for something more substantial and meaningful than colored cloth. I would like to think my ancestors fought for more than a symbol, and no matter what someone does to that symbol, it's not going to take away from what they really acted for.

And I think Kawa's talking past you. You're saying you don't agree with it, and that's true, that's your personal stance. Kawa's saying that nevertheless, if you and the others fought to preserve all the American rights, including free speech, that means you have to acknowledge that free speech means people are going to say things you don't agree with, and that includes this.

Nobody's questioning your personal opinion, of course; that's you, as much as the broader scope I describe above is me. I think Kawa's largely just questioning if you can acknowledge a point of view more abstracted from your personal opinion. Can you acknowledge the broader abstract point outside of your narrow personal reaction?

 

[Kawamura]

MM explained me much more eloquently than I'm capable of. And probably made me look better in the long run.

And I think disrespecting America is often the most respectful thing to do. I'm told in the declaration of independence for my country that when my gov't gets in the way of my human rights and the rights of others, it is my right and duty to protest, change and even overthrow it. As MM put it, people hopefully don't die for a flag, they die for a people, a people that create a gov't to serve their needs and who are responsible for criticizing it when needed. Even if that involves burning a flag.

 

[Sir_Mister]

Or maybe, here's a thought, you're saying that the powers that control America that you're protesting have reduced the meaning and value of the flag to make it no better than kindling.

Coming from your persepctive, I can understand your point of view. No question that's what it means, to you. On the other hand, I would prefer to think the soldiers fought and died for something more substantial and meaningful than colored cloth. I would like to think my ancestors fought for more than a symbol, and no matter what someone does to that symbol, it's not going to take away from what they really acted for.

And I think Kawa's talking past you. You're saying you don't agree with it, and that's true, that's your personal stance. Kawa's saying that nevertheless, if you and the others fought to preserve all the American rights, including free speech, that means you have to acknowledge that free speech means people are going to say things you don't agree with, and that includes this.

Nobody's questioning your personal opinion, of course; that's you, as much as the broader scope I describe above is me. I think Kawa's largely just questioning if you can acknowledge a point of view more abstracted from your personal opinion. Can you acknowledge the broader abstract point outside of your narrow personal reaction?

Well first I will acknowledge that at the moment burning the flag is protected under "free speech". Now as for broadening my view beyond personal reaction, probably not, for it is my opinion. If you look at when flag burning is used as a protest it is done out of hate, being mad at the country, or just to do it. It is from the way I was brought up and from my time is the service. I believe that flag burning is ineffective and mis-directed. I know the can come up with a better thing to do to protest. The American flag stands for everything we believe in and everything that soldiers long gone have fought for. No, they did not just die for the material that the flag is made out of, but rather laid down their lives for their country and what they thought was right. Haven't they been disgraced enough over the years. To me it is all about respect.

I didn't say that people died or fought for the flag but what it represents, its 200+ years of history. The flag represents more than color of its cloth, it represents the free country we are, yes at the moment that includes your right to burn it. Does this put any damage on us as a country or on our government? No it does any real harm? No. But in my opinion I do believe it is a form of disrespect to our veterans, to those who died for you to have the right to burn the flag. Do I put a over value on symbols? Yes in this I do. I believe that flag burning is ineffective, mis-directed and disrespectful.

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

Is it reprehensible? I'd say yes. Whether you think you're protesting against the government or the state of affairs, you're pouring disrespect and scorn on the country that raised you. But should it be illegal? That's a tough one. While there's definately an arguement that flag burning constitutes treason, banning it would set a bad precident and restrict the rights of legitimate protestors. I don't think it should be outlawed, because they'll ban people from criticising the PM/President next.

 

[Kawamura]

Is it reprehensible? I'd say yes. Whether you think you're protesting against the government or the state of affairs, you're pouring disrespect and scorn on the country that raised you. But should it be illegal? That's a tough one. While there's definately an arguement that flag burning constitutes treason, banning it would set a bad precident and restrict the rights of legitimate protestors. I don't think it should be outlawed, because they'll ban people from criticising the PM/President next.

How the hell would one argue that flag burning is treason?

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

Is it reprehensible? I'd say yes. Whether you think you're protesting against the government or the state of affairs, you're pouring disrespect and scorn on the country that raised you. But should it be illegal? That's a tough one. While there's definately an arguement that flag burning constitutes treason, banning it would set a bad precident and restrict the rights of legitimate protestors. I don't think it should be outlawed, because they'll ban people from criticising the PM/President next.

How the hell would one argue that flag burning is treason?

I think it's pretty straightforward. More basic than the legal definition, it's betraying your country. I can't think of a more blatant sign of betrayal of your country than flag burning, can you?

 

[Kawamura]

Yeah, I can. Such as actually betraying one's country. Where the hell does flag burning become betrayal?

 

[Mr Master]

Is it reprehensible? I'd say yes. Whether you think you're protesting against the government or the state of affairs, you're pouring disrespect and scorn on the country that raised you. But should it be illegal? That's a tough one. While there's definately an arguement that flag burning constitutes treason, banning it would set a bad precident and restrict the rights of legitimate protestors. I don't think it should be outlawed, because they'll ban people from criticising the PM/President next.

How the hell would one argue that flag burning is treason?

I think it's pretty straightforward. More basic than the legal definition, it's betraying your country. I can't think of a more blatant sign of betrayal of your country than flag burning, can you?

Um, yeah, tons. Selling secrets to foreign nations, acting directly against the military or attacking governmental officials in the name of a foreign power. Burning the flag? Yeah, doesn't even rate. You'd accept burning an effigy of the President (pick your favoirte, not necessarily the current one) as less treasonous than a flag? But then my feeling about an inanimate symbol is well known in this very thread.

Besides, the America of today isn't the America that raised me. I was raised in the 1970s and 1980s. It's a completely different animal of a nation now, and it could be argued that I owe it as much loyalty as it offers me. I tend to be a bit more generous than THAT, but still...

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

Um, yeah, tons. Selling secrets to foreign nations, acting directly against the military or attacking governmental officials in the name of a foreign power. Burning the flag? Yeah, doesn't even rate. You'd accept burning an effigy of the President (pick your favoirte, not necessarily the current one) as less treasonous than a flag? But then my feeling about an inanimate symbol is well known in this very thread.

Besides, the America of today isn't the America that raised me. I was raised in the 1970s and 1980s. It's a completely different animal of a nation now, and it could be argued that I owe it as much loyalty as it offers me. I tend to be a bit more generous than THAT, but still...

I know what you mean in that regard. I grew up in the 90s myself and the country has changed massively. It's more gritty. But the flag stands as a sign of the nation, whether it's changed or unchanged. I've got nothing in common with someone that lived a hundred years ago, in terms of morals or values. But the flag is a reminder that we're both part of the nation. Or I am and they were...you get the idea.

Back to your first point, it's interesting that you mention foreign powers. We're currently at war, for better or for worse. Maybe it's hard to argue for treason in peacetime, but in war surely you're fueling the enemy's psyche? And just because it's pretty minor compared to, say, giving military plans to the Iranians, doesn't absolve it from the charge. You can't let someone off for armed robbery because they only stole part of the safe's contents.

 

[Mr Master]

Back to your first point, it's interesting that you mention foreign powers. We're currently at war, for better or for worse. Maybe it's hard to argue for treason in peacetime, but in war surely you're fueling the enemy's psyche? And just because it's pretty minor compared to, say, giving military plans to the Iranians, doesn't absolve it from the charge. You can't let someone off for armed robbery because they only stole part of the safe's contents.

Actually, that's not a fair comparison.

If you say that protesting by burning a flag is giving comfort and support to the enemy, you could make the same argument for protesting in general, or criticizing the government. And many made that argument in the early days of the war, just for saying Bush & Co. went in with poor planning and bad logic. Which, you know, was absolutely true. But it's not a valid comparison to say protesting against the government (in whatever form) is tantamount to treason. Because if the government is in the wrong, it ought to be your DUTY to protest it whenever you see the need.

The comparison you ought to be making is "you can't let someone off for armed robbery because they're cheating on their taxes." Which, you know, they're not really related, other than both are wrong (this being from your perspective, of course; I'd personally use "because they're talking about hating capitalism," but that's my feeling on it).

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

Back to your first point, it's interesting that you mention foreign powers. We're currently at war, for better or for worse. Maybe it's hard to argue for treason in peacetime, but in war surely you're fueling the enemy's psyche? And just because it's pretty minor compared to, say, giving military plans to the Iranians, doesn't absolve it from the charge. You can't let someone off for armed robbery because they only stole part of the safe's contents.

Actually, that's not a fair comparison.

If you say that protesting by burning a flag is giving comfort and support to the enemy, you could make the same argument for protesting in general, or criticizing the government. And many made that argument in the early days of the war, just for saying Bush & Co. went in with poor planning and bad logic. Which, you know, was absolutely true. But it's not a valid comparison to say protesting against the government (in whatever form) is tantamount to treason. Because if the government is in the wrong, it ought to be your DUTY to protest it whenever you see the need.

The comparison you ought to be making is "you can't let someone off for armed robbery because they're cheating on their taxes." Which, you know, they're not really related, other than both are wrong (this being from your perspective, of course; I'd personally use "because they're talking about hating capitalism," but that's my feeling on it).

But burning the flag isn't a stand against the government. Possibly the people who do the act think it is, but what they're doing is scorning their own nation. The nation is made up of so much more than who's in charge.

As for the allegory, I think mine has some weight. You argued that flag burning doesn't constitute treason because it's minor in comparison to, say, selling secrets. But you can't discredit something as a crime just because it's petty. That's why they have charges for petty theft, petty assault.

 

[Kawamura]

You're allowed to have scorn for your nation.

:/

That isn't treason. Expressing that scorn isn't treason, either, as long as you're doing it in a way that isn't directly harmful to the country. So, selling gov't secrets to the USSR during the Cold War = treason. Burning the flag, saying 'I hate America, gov't, people and even the little doggies" = not treason.

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

That's true actually, I'll concede on the treason. And I do think it's pretty unpleasant, (unless the burner has their airline ticket and permanent visa booked for another country) but obviously the debate was on whether it should actually be illegal so what I think of the act itself doesn't really matter.

 

[Mr Master]

But burning the flag isn't a stand against the government. Possibly the people who do the act think it is, but what they're doing is scorning their own nation.

I actually also want to address this point in specific.

The action that we're talking about is incontrovertible: burning the flag.

But what it means varies with what the flag means, and there's no way to legislate feelings about such things. It would be insane to try, and would have the opposite of the intended effect.

You're saying "X action means Y." But what if I don't agree with that? What if I think X action means Z? Who's right? Well, again, that depends on who you ask. Something like that is to open to personal interpretation. That's why it can't be legislated, because while you think torching a banner means you're scorning each and every citizen, I don't think that at all, and you ask a dozen people what it means to them, and you might get fourteen different answers.

I rather object to being told what I think and feel, whether by the government or fellow citizens. I dislike being told what something "means" when I think it means something different. This is why this kind of subject is a slippery slope, and why we can't afford to try and make law about it.

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

But burning the flag isn't a stand against the government. Possibly the people who do the act think it is, but what they're doing is scorning their own nation.

I actually also want to address this point in specific.

The action that we're talking about is incontrovertible: burning the flag.

But what it means varies with what the flag means, and there's no way to legislate feelings about such things. It would be insane to try, and would have the opposite of the intended effect.

You're saying "X action means Y." But what if I don't agree with that? What if I think X action means Z? Who's right? Well, again, that depends on who you ask. Something like that is to open to personal interpretation. That's why it can't be legislated, because while you think torching a banner means you're scorning each and every citizen, I don't think that at all, and you ask a dozen people what it means to them, and you might get fourteen different answers.

I rather object to being told what I think and feel, whether by the government or fellow citizens. I dislike being told what something "means" when I think it means something different. This is why this kind of subject is a slippery slope, and why we can't afford to try and make law about it.

But that justification doesn't ring true. Save for, say, going out and killing a bald eagle or a lion (delete as appropriate) there's no greater symbol for an assault on your mother country. Flag burners can say that they're burning capitalism, or protesting against aggressive foreign policy, but the fact is that they evidently associate these things with their nation's flag and thus their nation. If you think that your nation is evil and capitalist, and hate capitalism, then you hate your nation. And my argument was that flag burning, whatever reason you did it for, indicates that you hate your nation.

 

[Mr Master]

Again, you're telling me what my thoughts and intentions are, and that's not kosher.

 

[Tathariel]

and the rebuttal???? this is intresting.

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

Not at all, your thoughts are your own. The gist of my arguement is that certain acts have certain implications, whether intended or otherwise. I can recount dozens of examples where people have done or said things for some illustrious motive but the result was the same. As for flags; nations are sociological constructs that bind groups, and a flag is one of many things that bind such a group together.

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

and the rebuttal???? this is intresting.

Apologies it took 50 minutes, highly talkative mate on the phone

 

[Mr Master]

True, flags are sociological constructs, and they're symbolic of many things. But you're saying that burning a flag means you hate your nation, and that's not what it has to mean at all. Yes, it can mean that, but it doesn't have to. I don't happen to share the belief system that puts that kind of total uncompromising unreasoning value on an inanimate symbol. You keep repeating the essential argument of "burn flag = hate country" as if it's self-evident, as if it's a dogmatic truism, but I don't partake of that belief system.

And the thing is, I don't have to. That's one of the founding rights of this nation, is that you can choose your beliefs, and you have the right to them. The logical corollary of that is that you have to have tolerance for the beliefs of others, provided they don't impinge upon other people (and their mere existence does not constitute impingement). Unilateral and totalitarian precepts are great if you hold yourself to them, but we don't have the right to force other people to live up to the precepts we set unless they volunteer to do so.

In my perspective, a flag is a good symbol, it's important, it can generate pride and respect and it's useful as a thing to focus on. But it's not the thing itself, any more than a paper Valentine or a bouquet of roses is actually Love. You can burn a paper heart or shred the flowers and say that you're killing Love, but you're not. Love is bigger than that, and while you may be symbolically trying to express your rejection of the emotion, that doesn't really affect Love unless the observer thinks it does.

Exactly the same thing with a flag: burning a flag doesn't bother me, because while it's a good symbol, it's not the thing itself, and the flag-burner is looking for shock value. "Oh, I'm so angry, I'm burning this flag! That's how pissed off I am at America!" "Well whoopty-doo, you're destroying a cloth symbol. When you're ready to do something important, talk to me then."

The flag represents, but the flag does not personify. The flag isn't an avatar, it's a reminder. I can write my loved ones' names on a post-it, but that post-it doesn't take a piece of my loved ones with it when it gets thrown away.

Now, I respect your beliefs. To you, that's what it means. All I'm asking you to do in return is understand that your beliefs are not my beliefs... and that it's okay. There's room enough for both. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to accept what I believe, just that you accept that I am allowed to believe it, and that's fine. Because from the "there's no other possible interpretation" language of your explanation above, I didn't get that impression, honestly. And since I -do- have a different interpretation on the subject, you can see how that might engage my reflex, there.

 

[Kawamura]

I'm confused.

So if I say anything that isn't fucking positive, that's akin to treason?

 

[Tathariel]

sorry lol. dont mind me.

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

Now, I respect your beliefs. To you, that's what it means. All I'm asking you to do in return is understand that your beliefs are not my beliefs... and that it's okay. There's room enough for both. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to accept what I believe, just that you accept that I am allowed to believe it, and that's fine. Because from the "there's no other possible interpretation" language of your explanation above, I didn't get that impression, honestly. And since I -do- have a different interpretation on the subject, you can see how that might engage my reflex, there.

You're right on this actually, to be fair. Just because it means a certain thing to me doesn't mean it applies to everyone.

 

[LittleBitCheeky]

I'm confused.

So if I say anything that isn't fucking positive, that's akin to treason?

And I said that...where? Er, read my last post to you again.