Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Flag Burning

Shovel

Shovel

Supernova
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
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
 
Personally I a not for total free speech or freedom of the press, somethings need to not be said or done. Like how the press has cause people to die because of not letting paratich though wanting to get a picture for there papper.
 
Uhhh....what?

I understood the first half, but not the second half.
 
Yeah you... completely lost me. Seriously.
Why shouldn't people have free speech? Do you seriously what to be told what you can and cannot say? If so, go live in China.

As for flag burning. Yeah, it's touchy. Like hardcore. But my first instinct is that it is a form of expression and, in itself, should not be illegal.

Little tidbit: Flag burning is 100% legal... under certain circumstances. If a flag is 'so tattered that it can no longer serve as a symbol of the United States, it should be destroyed in a dignified manner, preferably by burning.' Just for those that don't know. Kinda cool and symbolic in itself.
 
okay, let e see if I can explain it better..... I believe in freedom of speech yes. But there is a point were it is more trubble than it's wroth. And we do not truly have freedom of speech.

Case in point, If a guy tells some Racist or Sexiest joke he will get in trubble for it if some one complaints, made to go to classes or loosing his job. Thus not free speech.

another Example. You are not allowed to go in say a movie theater and yell fire, another part were speech is not free.


Also burning a flag is not specking it is a action, there for I do not see how it can be classified by freedom of speech.

Third The biggest problem is the Freedom of the Press, They have cause people to die because of not letting medical person though trying to get pictures, a example of this is Princess Diana. They tell what ever they think will get the most ratings regardless of what might happen because of it, can't think of any examples off the top of my head sorry.

That is about all I can think to wright now so yeah...
 
The problem with the Freedoms of Speech and Press is that they are in the Constitution to safeguard them from obstruction by the government, barring certain amendments to that. Honestly, things like not yelling fire in a crowded place are common sense. Those things should be barred because people do them to create a panic, which is wholly retarded. As for racism and such, well, that's the fault of us being human. Words only have power over us when we give them said power. Words like nigger, kike, wop or greaser (I couldn't resist the FMJ byte) should be ignored. What matters is what is implied behind the words. Hell, I could call a black person a quaft and have it mean the same thing. In my opinion, though, anything discriminatory is moronic and we'd be better off getting over it, on all sides of the matter.

The Princess Diana incident was in Europe, btw. And I don't recall that being the case. The only thing that I heard was a paparazzi reporter blocked and pursued them for pictures. Yeah, extreme, but nothing can really be done about that from the US. But in America you can be damn sure that if the media blocks doctors from getting to someone they will be held liable for it. Also, freedom of the press has no bearing on what you said. What it does is protect the right of journalists to publish what they feel they should be able to, as long as they are not intentionally defaming people. Which makes sense.

Flag burning is actually a form of speech, when you think about it. It's a way of expressing your feelings, just like talking. It's been ruled as protected under the First Amendment.
 
okay, let e see if I can explain it better..... I believe in freedom of speech yes. But there is a point were it is more trubble than it's wroth. And we do not truly have freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

If we do not truly have free speech, then our constitution is worthless and we are all doomed. In my humble opinion.

Case in point, If a guy tells some Racist or Sexiest joke he will get in trubble for it if some one complaints, made to go to classes or loosing his job. Thus not free speech.
Click to expand...

It's still speech, and thus is protected by the first amendment. However, it is offensive speech and you probably WILL get fired because corporations make their own rules, and you have to abide by them if you want to continue working for them.

another Example. You are not allowed to go in say a movie theater and yell fire, another part were speech is not free.
Click to expand...

You are not allowed to FALSELY shout fire (or bomb) in a movie theatre. This is covered in Brandenburg v. Ohio which states that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite "imminent lawless action". Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned. The rule overturned the decision of the earlier Schenck v. United States, which had established "clear and present danger" as the constitutional limit for speech. In Texas v. Johnson, the court found that "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's burning of the flag," therefore he was protected because it was not considered "imminent lawless action".

Also burning a flag is not specking it is a action, there for I do not see how it can be classified by freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech means you can express an opinion without fear of censorship by the government. This includes books, art, music, and symbols. A flag is a symbol, and therefore the burning of such a symbol is expression, and is protected under the first amendment.
 
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.usa-flag-site.org/forum/proper-military-flag-disposal-ceremony-2662.html">http://www.usa-flag-site.org/forum/prop ... -2662.html</a><!-- m -->

"Flags determined not to have historical value will be destroyed by the parent organization, privately by burning, with no suggestion of irreverence to its military or national significance, unless its retention as a display memento is desired by the organization."
 
To be honest, I don't believe that the importance of this topic warrants it's place in this so-called 'academy' forum.
I don't see much controversy or heavily moving arguments here to sway a reader's thoughts too far in either favor.
 
hmmm...I dont think it should be illigal. If people wanna go and burn flags go for it. just dont be surprised when a bunch of people start a riot and try to hang you lol.
 
(please note that I'm Canadian, not American, so we don't have the amendments.)

Should Flag Burning be made illegal? I'd like to say yes though I can't fully justify that. I see it as an act of utter hatred, disrespect and if done by the people within the nation of said flag, then a form of rebellion. I am of course not talking of flags being burned to be properly discarded.

Back on track, I think my biggest issue, is that if someone burns their own nation's flag, I see it as a form of rebellion, which is illegal no? It appears like the act of someone who wishes to bring down the nations government. While the act of rebellion/ revolution may or may not be a good idea, it is not the topic of this thread.

That's... the best way I can explain how I see it anyway.
 
I'm pretty sure that a country founded on a rebellion is a little okay with rebellion.

I'd also think that flag burning is an appropriate way to express disgust, disapproval, whatever as a opposed to, say, punching out an elective official. Americans are allowed to hate and disrespect their leaders. We're also allowed to change our government, hence the whole voting thing.
 
Touche.

Those are simply my views on the matter, my own country's rebellion having failed.

To clarify is this topic specific to the issue of Flag Burning in the United States, or does nation not matter?
 
The OP doesn't state it's America he/she/they is talking about, but it's pretty clear that this is America.
 
Hmmm... well my only real points were fairly Canadian based. I'm not sure I can really debate for an American perspective.
 
People tend to forget that freedom of speech applies to everyone even if they have different opinions than what they have. People have the right to express their displeasure and even hatred of the United States and especially the government which includes burning the flag.

People are saying that the press and speech should be regulated without the understanding that both are. Take the press for example, the press is owned by nationwide corporations who have a responsibility making a profit so the majority of the mainstream news, especially on television, is extremely watered down in order to keep people watching and to maintain the status quo. It’s come out that the white house has fed the major news organizations talking points stating what they should talk about.

I think the problem with any debate involving freedom is that most people don’t understand that the price of having those freedoms is understanding that some can’t handle the responsibility that comes with it and will abuse it. When those abuses occur, they need to be handled on an individual basis instead of the more common idea of eliminating the freedom. If you have the right to say what you want, someone is going to express themselves in a way that you don’t like but trying to take those freedoms away from someone also eliminates your own.
 
The guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press is merely against governmental intrusion.

Someone goes and makes racist jokes in the workplace? It's not the government doing the firing; it's the company the person works for, who says "that sort of thing isn't allowed here." Is there government backing for the action? Yes there is, but not in the sense of restricting speech, rather in the sense of ensuring liberties, i.e. everybody has the right to work in a non-hostile, non-discriminatory workplace. Everybody does. And racist jokes can easily be hostile, and are based on discrimination in the first place.

So person A is free to make all the racist jokes they want. But if person B has a problem with it, they have the legal right to complain, and if the company doesn't do something about it, they have the right to be compensated for it. And the company doesn't want to pay compensation. So it's easier to make discriminatory behavior (which is, quite frankly, in this day and age, completely unprofessional in the first place) grounds for reprimand and dismissal, so you can fire the people who can't function in a modern society and hire someone who's able to resist blatantly insulting people just based on skin color or gender or sexual preference when those things have nothing to do with being able to do the job they're hired for.

This is what they call "professionalism."

But anyway, that sort of dynamic limits inappropriate behavior without having to start on the slippery slope of legally restricting what people can say, because once you start that with one thing, you get an administration that comes along and makes something else illegal, and a few years later someone else will add still more. It may seem like a good idea to limit the things you don't like, but time will come when the pendulum swings and all of a sudden the stuff you actually do like is on the chopping block, and there you go. It's like the Republican Congress a number of years ago wanting to make the filibuster illegal, even though they were infamous for its use, and are using it today whenever they can. It's called short-sightedness, and I'm glad they weren't able to do it, even if they're causing trouble with it now.

As for a flag, a flag is a symbol, and not the thing itself. There have always been, and will always be, people who put inordinate value on symbols, more than they're actually worth. But if America (or any other nation) is so small and weak that it can actually be damaged by someone burning a flag in anger, you've got to question how worthy it is of that sort of idolatry. I have to believe America is bigger than bile-spewing neo-con talk show hosts, so I consequently believe it's bigger than any protester in this or any other country burning a brightly colored piece of cloth. My America is not encapsulated in a flag; it's in the people and the land and the fabric of the society, the pure threads and the corrupt alike.

So burn all the flags you want, I say; it's only people's reaction to the action that gives the action any significance. If people didn't foam at the mouth and get all irrational at the sight of a flaming banner, other people wouldn't try and provoke reactions in that way. That's simple psychology. The people burning flags to get a response are just trying to manipulate you, just like people who try and be all obviously and overtly patriotic are also trying to manipulate you into believing whatever lies they might say.

Symbols can be more trouble than they're worth, in my view; give me reality, any day.
 


As usual with this sort of thing, extremism from all sides has inappropriately distorted this issue. The real conflict here is between free expression of dissent via protest and the right to public property and safety. Burning flags during protests is emotionally inflammatory to both supporters and opposers, and can lead to someone being badly burned while blows are exchanged. This is disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. If the flag does not belong to the burninator, then that's clearly theft and destruction of property (vandalism). So does the right to public safety/property override the right to free expression?

So far the courts in the USA have leaned in favor of free expression, but the question is by no means settled or even easy to settle. This is why each case is handled by US courts separately. In countries with no protections for free expression (most of the rest of the world), the question is moot.
 
I love the national flag. Over the years it got old and colors faded so doesn't look nice and smart so i retired it. It didn't strike me to burn it but it turned out as one of the most useful duster/mop. Still need to find a new one for which I haven't had the time yet.
 
Decadent Prince said:
As usual with this sort of thing, extremism from all sides has inappropriately distorted this issue. The real conflict here is between free expression of dissent via protest and the right to public property and safety. Burning flags during protests is emotionally inflammatory to both supporters and opposers, and can lead to someone being badly burned while blows are exchanged. This is disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. If the flag does not belong to the burninator, then that's clearly theft and destruction of property (vandalism). So does the right to public safety/property override the right to free expression?

So far the courts in the USA have leaned in favor of free expression, but the question is by no means settled or even easy to settle. This is why each case is handled by US courts separately. In countries with no protections for free expression (most of the rest of the world), the question is moot.
Click to expand...

If I have a little rainbow button on my backpack, that could easily be emotionally inflammatory (it has been before, amusingly). If someone attacks me for that, does that mean that putting a little gay pride button on my backpack is disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment?
 
Shovel said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sir_Mister said:
Shovel said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom