It’s baaaaaack. The proposed brand new amendment that makes a mockery out of the First One:
“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.
I mean, this concept should be elementary. This should be American Citizenship 101. The flag stands for a nation with freedoms, including the freedom to burn the flag in protest.
I’ve always said that I wasn’t a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it’s such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action. So I don’t think it’s terribly effective in terms of convincing others. But the Congress…you know, the ones who shall make no law interfering with freedom of expression?…apparently didn’t get the memo.
And hey…all those articles of clothing with the flag adorning it? Notebooks? Forget it. What about decals or bumper stickers, with the image of the American flag getting spattered by mud and dirt. Pull that SUV over, fella…you with that foul bumpersticker and your girlfriend with the stars and stripes bikini top! You’re under arrest courtesy of Congress!
You can’t burn the flag of the United States by burning a representation of it any more than you can burn the Declaration of Independence by burning a copy of it.
You can, however, incinerate the concept of freedom of speech in this country by making a constitutional amendment banning a form of expression for the worst possible reason: It upsets people. No other reason. No one’s reputation stands to be defamed, no money lost. No child’s delicate mind is going to be threatened from the sight. No panics from “fire” falsely cried in a crowded theater (indeed, nowadays the major challenge is finding a theater that’s crowded.) There’s no cover here. It’s naked censorship, a throttling of free expression by the very governmental body that’s sworn to protect it.
Plus the GOP’s gotta love it because liberals must either embrace the notion–which is antithetical to anyone who has a grasp of free speech, to say nothing of making them indistinguishable from conservatives–or else they must spend countless man hours explaining why they value free expression above cheap political opportunism…and lose the vote of every schmuck who can’t wrap his tiny mind around defending to the death one’s right to express an opinion that that same person may find personally repellant. Puts them in a nice position for the next election.
And, of course, anyone opposed to a flag burning amendment is deemed “out of touch” with the citizenry. You know what? I’d rather be out of touch with the citizenry than out of touch with the concept of free expression.
PAD
UPDATE:
‘Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,’ said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. ‘Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.’
‘If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.’ said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center. –GH
• 
You know, if I were a flag making company, I’d be all over an amendment like this. Setting aside the mockery it makes of the First Amendment, as well as the absolute impossibility of such an amendment ever being passed, it’s a great opportunity for corporate growth. Say the Flag Amendment does pass (or even merely makes it up for a vote), I’d wager that you rae going to see a dramatic increase in flag burning. Hëll, I might even pick up a couple at the dollar store just to get things going. Remind me to buy some stock in these flag companies.
I suppose I could have used the phrase ‘flag manufacturer’, but that would have just been too proper.
Those IDIOTS! They’re telling the terrorists just how to hurt us the most. Apparantly, this whole time, the simple buring of a symbol would cause such great harm to the United States as a country, as a nation, that now our esteemed elected officials have finally decided to take action to protect us from the dreaded impact, cost, and senseless loss of cotton due to flag burning.
Only (gasp)..our laws only extend to our borders…what’s to stop those that wish America harm from burning our flag? Dear God, this act is tantamount to Superman wearing a Tshirt saying “Got Kryptonite?”
With current voting records suggesting that the senate is only 2 votes short this time around, it looks like this madness is really going to happen. Which means we’ll spend the next 7 years having to hear about campaigns, most likely paid for with tax $, stumping around the country in an effort to get the 38 state ratifications needed to make the amendment official.
Lets go back to the stars and stripes bikini topic I all for that…Could the bottom be a thong or a t-back thats real issue congress should debate (I go for thong).
Well they’ve got to do something, I mean they can’t get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan, they can’t get the economy back up to full steam, they can’t get the price of gas under control, they can’t balance the budget, and they can’t investigate all of the corruption in the Bush Administration but hey falg burning they can do.
Here’s another interesting bit on Congressional tomfoolery brought to my attention by Steven Grant’s Column.
“ITEM! Four more years? Forty? Last week, some of the most right wing representatives in the House introduced a bill. HJ Res 24, to repeal the 22nd Amendment that placed term limits on the office of the presidency. Seems like barely ten years ago term limits was the great cause célèbre of the Right, as they sought to drive entrenched liberals out of office and “level the playing field” by removing the necessity to run against incumbents. In fact, it was the Right who pushed through the 22nd Amendment in the first place, in fear that Franklin Roosevelt, the only man ever to win the presidency in four consecutive elections, would become in essence President For Life, a functional dictator of America. Apparently that’s no longer a concern – then again, the same people so concerned over term limits in the ’90s abruptly decided perhaps they weren’t such a good idea after they got elected, so it’s not like there’s no precedent for it – and obviously the main intent behind the bill is a prolonged reign for the Hand Puppet, who would no doubt fly the “stay the course” flag for as long as the war on terrorism went on (decades, so we’re were told), and the controversial computerized election machines being shoved into use in every possible venue could theoretically ensure re-election after re-election. A most cunning plan, as Baldrick would say. Of course, it’s got a couple flaws. A Constitutional amendment isn’t all that easy to pass – there’s a long ratification process, which would probably see the Hand Puppet out of office before it would take effect – and with his popularity plunging that’s hardly a given in the first place. I suspect a lot of Americans find some small comfort in the notion that they most they’ll have to suffer from any president is eight years. On the other hand, if the amendment gets passed, it could also result in another Clinton presidency, and I don’t mean Hillary. That’d be some sort of ironic justice, I suppose. The corollary amendment in the background is the one to allow naturalized citizens, rather than simply native-borns, to become president, which would open the door to a run by Herr Gropenator, but he’s having his own P.R. problems these days.”
of course, it’s Steven Grant’s Permanent Damage column at http://www.comicbookresources.com
This is another case of politicians trying to pick up points with overt patriotism instead of actually doing something good for this country. This amendment accomplishes nothing while at the same time making no sense. I remember being taught in boy scouts that the only honorable way to dispose of a flag was to burn it.
“Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center,” said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.”
I know some will consider this response to be in poor taste (althoug, I consider Rep. Cunningham’s abuse of the tragic fate of those stranded on top of the WTC to be a terrible usurpation of the memory of those people)
but I’d imagine, if you could ask those folks what they’d want Congress to do, it’d be more along the lines of “get off your lazy ášš and get me off this eff’n building…”
Or more seriously, rather than take some meaningless action that’s going to tie up American tax dollars for years to come, DO something that makes actual American PEOPLE, not some FLAGS, safe.
It’s wrong to set people on fire regardless of their sexual orientation.
I was against term limits the last time it was brought up. Term limits are set by the voters, ever four (or six) years. Why fire a guy who’s doing a good job just because he’s been at it for a while now?
Sometimes you’ve got to ride the current of the baser instincts in order to get some of the higher work done. Isn’t this the logic Fantagraphics uses? Publish the Eros to make the money to fund the more meritorious (but lesser selling) titles?
Remind me to buy some stock in these flag companies.
The ones here in the US, or the ones abroad?
I remember several years ago a little controversy over how many of those small flags you see people waving on July 4th are actually made overseas. Not sure if it still happens. But I thought to myself…wouldn’t it be patriotic to burn those flags?
Here’s an article on US Flags manufactured overseas.
Truth be known, it really doesn’t matter (and hey, in the interest of diversifying my portfolio, I should go for a little of both).
A lot of those flags are made here in New Jersey by the Annin Flag Company – 3 blocks from where I live in the “suburbs”…
Well, then, dammit Kathy, I’m going to burn me some flags. I will do my part to jump start the economy. Support America: Burn A Flag!
“Here’s an article on US Flags manufactured overseas.”
Bill Hicks had a great bit about this:
Anti-Flag Burner – “My daddy died in Korea for that flag.”
Bill – “Wow, what a coincidence. Mine was made in Korea.”
Seriously, though, as a kid who was teased a lot in school (you can tell), I happen to know that the best way to get someone to stop doing something that offends you isn’t to make a giant stink and call Mommy or Daddy (or, in this case, Big Brother) to make them stop. It’s to refuse to let it affect you. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but a burnt flag will never hurt me. Unless it’s a really big flag, and I’m rolled up in it. But you get my meaning.
I’m not at all surprised that people have a problem with someone burning the flag. I have a problem with people who treat popular culture as unimportant. But I don’t lobby Congress to make a law forbidding people from bashing pop culture. I just say to myself, “S/he’s wrong,”* and go about my day. At most, I might try to show the person my side of the issue in hopes that they’ll develop a more rounded worldview. But I don’t lose sleep if they don’t. And I imagine they don’t lose sleep if I don’t come around to their way of thinking. At least, I hope they don’t. Be a waste of good sleep, that.
*No, I don’t get into these sorts of arguments with Hermats. All the Hermats I know are big pop culture fans. Especially when it comes to Muppets. Don’t ask me why.
Great article, Mr. David. I agree with you on all points.
I am completely opposed to this amendment (though I’d rather they focus on this than the anti-gay marriage one).
On the other hand, flag burners piss me off. Not because they’re desecrating the flag but because they’re doing a piss-poor job of stating their mind and if anything are just blowing their arguments to hëll. I’m perfectly fine with them being subject to the laws against open burning without a permit. If I can’t burn leaves…
Interesting article about “The Blasphemy Of Flag Worship”:
http://www.alternet.org/story/22268/
Also, I don’t have the link right now, but one school has revised it’s dress code policy that the U.S. flag is the only flag students can wear, regardless of their national origin.
Like we need a flag burning amendment*.
Almost no one is burning American flags on American soil (and there are laws for dealing with the illegal burning of anything on most public property anyhow.) It’s so rare to even hear about it. But we get to watch this waste of time and money (we are paying their salaries and perks while they’re in session) while so many things that are real problems that happen everyday get put on the back burner. Why? So that they can really do nothing but claim something wonderful was done. Somebody, anybody….. Please vote them out.
“We’re the G.O.P. and we approve this waste of time, money and intelligence.”
*Brought to you by the same Neanderthal morons that brought you “Freedom Fries.”
Why don’t they just make flame retardant flags?
Two thoughts:
* In Boy Scouts, we covered propercare and respect for the flag. Among those is “Don’t let it touch the ground”. And what were you supposed to do if it did touch the ground? BURN IT! (Hello?)
* Passing an amendment against burning (or otherwise “desecrating”) the flag is the surest way to make me no longer respect the flag. I’ll never again salute it — might give it the finger, though — and I’ll turn my back any time the National Anthem is played. (Maybe I’ll sing “To Anacreon in Heaven” instead.) Dictate that I not disrespect something and you’ll see disrespect within the bounds of the rule like you can’t imagine.
“And what were you supposed to do if it did touch the ground? BURN IT!”
That may well be what you were taught; many were. However, it is false, as you can see explained here: http://www.snopes.com/holidays/flagday/burnflag.asp
So, any idea what the actual punishment for “desecrating” the flag will be? A fine? Well, I suspect that there will be funds setup pretty quickly that will end up being used to pay those fines.
A Federal prison term? That’ll be nice. Let’s throw people who show their anger at the US government into jail because we don’t like what they’re saying. Real good – that’s exactly the type of thing that we spout angry rhetoric at Third World dictators for.
Its totally pathetic that our Federal representatives are wasting time on this when we still have troops in Iraq that don’t have body armor. WTF? I will agree, though, that this has to be getting pushed by flag manufacturers like there’s no tomorrow – purely for the profit angle, if nothing else.
So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.
Shocking news.
Who could have predicted THAT?
So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.
Since you prefer to remain ignorant… as somebody else mentioned, when is the last time a news story was reported regarding a flag burning on US soil?
It’s been awhile.
Having attending a flag burning “ceremony” (the proper disposal method and all that) as a child myself while in the Boy Scouts, it does tend to instill pride and patriotism in me.
And then jáçkáššëš in Congress have to go and blow that all away.
But then, I’m not going to blame the flag for the actions of the jáçkáššëš. I’d rather we burn the jáçkáššëš…
FINALLY! A definate answer. I’ve been asking around since 8th grade wether or not flag burning was legal, and never got a straight answer. Thanks. Anyway, reminds me of someone (I think it was George Carlin) talking about how much of a problem politicians using the flag as a shield was.
So Peter David is in favor of flag burning.
Proper way to dispose a flag, you know.
But I don’t think you have enough respect for either the flag or the principles it symnbolizes to grasp that.
Oddly, while I’m fairly patriotic (and a Christian), my response to burning the flag is exactly the same as if I were to see someone burning a copy of the Bible — I simply dismiss them out of hand.
I don’t understand the big fuss about this at all. It’s a symbol! Nothing more. Honestly, I say we should have a Constitutional amendment banning the courts and the congress from figuratively burning the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), instead. (See: McCain-Feingold, recent decisions mutilating the Commerce Clause to interfere with state laws, and every law ever passed that restricts gun ownership)
“So Peter David is in favor of flag burning”
What Peter actually said was: “I’ve always said that I wasn’t a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest, because it’s such a (pardon the expression) incendiary visual that whatever other point you wanted to make is going to be obscured by that action.”
Funny, I don’t see how saying “X isn’t illegal, and shouldn’t be” is the same thing as being in favor of it. I hate the stupid rudeness that abides in our culture, but I would never want the government to outlaw it. I’m not in favor of it, I just see that it’s outside the government’s job description.
I always loved the idea, “If we ever pass an amedment against flag burning, we need to include at least one loophole: It’s always okay to burn a flag while a politician is wrapping themselves in it.”
It’s always occurred to me that, instead of making flag descration illegal, why doesn’t Congress and the Senate try to make sure that they never do anything that would make anyone WANT to desecrate the flag?
It’s a crazy idea, but it just might work.
“Funny, I don’t see how saying ‘X isn’t illegal, and shouldn’t be’ is the same thing as being in favor of it.”
Since Peter David himself is far too haughty to reply, let me explain it to YOU!
Saying one isn’t “a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest” is disgraceful. If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be “I am not a fan of burning my house down”? Of course not. You’d be dead-set against it. So you see, “not being a fan” is simply a way of granting tacit approval.
And why do you suppose that Peter David gets so worked up about THIS subject? Because it feeds his world-view: Peter David knows all, and BUSH SUCKS.
If I wasn’t policing this site, and making a mockery out of the BUSH SUCKS people, I have no doubt Peter David would have tied BUSH SUCKS into this thread.
After all, it’s the only political thought he knows!
Classic. And funny.
“If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be “I am not a fan of burning my house down”?”
X-ray, X-ray, Xray,
you poor, deluded mouthpiece of the rabid right-wingers. We are NOT talking about the destruction of PERSONAL property. I agree that flag burning is stupid, much as Marilyn Manson is stupid: whatever real point there is to make is lost in the volitile imagery and offensive content. However, both Mr. Manson and flag-burners have the right to express themselves in what way seems fit to them, but only to the limits of my rights. If you burn a flag, that is your proprerty. I can smash MY lamp, I can’t smash yours. You can’t burn MY flag. Burning down my house is destroying what is MINE. Your rights end where mine begin: you have the right to happiness, but if that happiness involves killing others, you lose that right. (unless you are in the White House. Then it is ok. And I don’t just mean Bush. I mean anyone in the White House who has killed someone. Like Aarron Burr. Or Jackson.) Thus, what Mr. David said was that he personally would not burn a flag, nor is he a big fan of it, but that he will not stop other people from doing it. This is no way different than saying “I don’t like gangster rap, I won’t listen to it, but I won’t forbid everyone else from playing it.” Once again, to condense it for your small, closed mind:
“I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it.”
Rousseau
How about a bit more concern for the nation that flag represents. America is built, however imperfectly, on really wonderful ideals. The flag is just a symbol, yes, but so are the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence etc. Just what do we want that flag to represent- A beacon of peace and freedom to the whole world or.. A Fascist Theocracy that turns it’s citizens against each other in order to further it’s government’s questionable agenda.
It’s not the flag, it’s the nation it stands for that we need to be worried about.
A random thought- How about a different sort of
Flag Burning Amendment? One that would REQUIRE
the public burning of the Confederate Battle Flag
( especially when used as a racist symbol) and for that matter, let’s torch all those other banners like the various swastika flags that
white supremacist groups like to waive around.
Some flags need to be burned!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On an absoultely unrelated topic, Today I read
the Elizabeth Shelby story from Tales of The Captain’s Table. Great story, PAD! Now we know how Soleta ended up where she did.
I still think it’s sad that a certain unnamed someone has nothing better to do with his obviously excessive free time than to needlessly attack the people who post on this blog and who, to my knowledge, never did a thing to hurt him. (Come to think of it, I think I saw someone with the same alias and bad attitude over on a couple of other blogs. Could be my imagination…) You’re not going to change any POVs with ill phrasing, lack of logic and tact (Just because you’re not A, doesn’t mean you’re B), and ignorant attitude. You’re a disgrace to your fellow Republicans, to say nothing of your fellow man.
Onward to the flag debate: I have to agree with PAD on this one. However distasteful I might find burning the U.S. flag or desecrating it in any number of ways (Is tearing it like Bronson Pinchot tore Kleenex in “The Langoliers” out of the question? Just kidding!), the fact is, making such activity illegal just smacks of overindulgence and an overinflated ego. That, and like it or don’t, it’s a violation of the right to free speech. (James, way to go with the Rousseau quote, that nails it right-on, more succinctly than anything else could.) It’s that simple. And Kim? That idea about making ours a nation where nobody would want to desecrate the flag (and I don’t mean out of fear!)…it could be catchy.
In other news: my buddy Ben just arrived home safely from Iraq after a second tour. Give ‘im a hand, gang. He’s a PAD fan from way back, and a great guy besides. (Remember, kids–you can support our soldiers without supporting the war.)
~G.
“you can support our soldiers without supporting the war.”
In my mind that was one of the worst things about Vietnam. People would spit on the returning soldiers when they should have been spitting an Johnson, Nixon, and all the other idiots who had sent them off to die. I could never be a soldier. I don’t like regimentation, and to put it bluntly, I don’t have the guts, but those guys (and gals!) who put on the line and in harms way every dámņ day…they deserve everything we can give ’em. It is a crying shame that people who risk their lives are often on food stamps, while the people who send ’em out get fat. Really sad…the groups that do the most: soldiers, teachers, writers, preachers, always make the least. So support a Vet. Go and find someone who fought, in this war, or in any war, shake their hand, and tell them the truth: they are heros one and all.
As we did with another unnameable jerk of the days of yore, I’ll just reiterate PAD’s suggestion: When you read X-Ray, hear the voice of Eric Cartman.
Screw you guy, I’m going home.
Forgive me if I’m remembering this wrong. But I seem to recall from Civics and from being a Girl Scout, that when a flag becomes frayed, soiled or touches the ground, we are supposed to dispose of it by burning it. So, what does this new amandment mean? When our flags get worn we’re to toss them in the trash?
X-ray said
“If I wasn’t policing this site, and making a mockery out of the BUSH SUCKS people, I have no doubt Peter David would have tied BUSH SUCKS into this thread. “
Thanks God he’s there to keep you at bay PAD, otherwise who knows what you’d say on your own blog. Good thing x-ray is here to keep you away from that pesky 1st amendment. 😉
Jeff Coney
That may well be what you were taught; many were. However, it is false, as you can see explained here: “>http://www.snopes.com/holidays/flagday/burnflag.asp
Not really false, just slightly inaccurate.
“I might not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the Death your right to say it.” is has to be one of the most simplistic, ignorant notions that the anti-responsibility liberals like to cling to.
Not everything should be said just because it can be. There should be consequences for certain actions and statements.
X-Ray: Since Peter David himself is far too haughty to reply…
Luigi Novi: You have not established that he does not reply for this reason. It is likely that he does not reply because you post here simply to insult him and respond to him with Straw Man arguments. You have demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to respond directly to counterarguments by others that refute your position, and a tendency to reply with vitriol and invective, rather than constructive argument. Even conservatives who have disagreed with Peter on many issues here know how to do so with civility, and do not find you to be a competent debater, or a civil visitor to this site. So why would he respond to you? It’s obvious you’re not interested in polite discussion.
X-Ray: Saying one isn’t “a fan of flag-burning as a means of protest” is disgraceful. If I were to burn your house down, would your comment be “I am not a fan of burning my house down”? Of course not. You’d be dead-set against it. So you see, “not being a fan” is simply a way of granting tacit approval.
Luigi Novi: How do you figure this? Not being a fan of something means just that: That you do not condone, endorse, or favor it. But that’s different from thinking that it should be legally banned. And what about the fact that burning a flag is the prescribed way of disposing of one that’s no longer of good use, as it states in Paragraph K of Section 8 of Chapter 4 of Title 1 of the U.S. Code?
X-Ray: And why do you suppose that Peter David gets so worked up about THIS subject? Because it feeds his world-view: Peter David knows all, and BUSH SUCKS.
Luigi Novi: I don’t see any evidence that he’s more “worked up” about this topic any more than any other one that he comments on on his blog. He’s been a strident advocate for as broad an interpretation of the First Ammendment as possible for as long as I can remember, LONG before George W. Bush ever became President, and is perfectly consistent with every other column or blog entry he’s ever done in which he’s come out against any form of censorship. Can you point to a column, blog entry or statement he’s made that contradicts his position in this entry?
“Luigi Novi: You have not established that he does not reply for this reason. It is likely that he does not reply because you post here simply to insult him and respond to him with Straw Man arguments.”
I don’t reply to him because he posts nothing worth replying to. It’s really not much more complicated than that. Honestly, Luigi, I haven’t the slightest idea why you, or anyone, bothers. He’s not interested in rational discourse and his posts bear no resemblance to reality. Not really seeing the point.
PAD
Lately, when I have been coming to this blog, I have heard a slight, whining sound. It only lasts for a moment, and there is no physical manifestation to go along with it, although it does sound like an infestation.
Sorta reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Kirk and crew hear these noises and eventually find that the noises are just some people at a different vibratory level desperately in need of attention.
“Not everything should be said just because it can be. There should be consequences for certain actions and statements.”
Actions yes. Statements no. (and the old one about fire in a crowded theater is true, but that is more of an action. A statement that causes an action should be viewed as an action.) I am reminded of an line from the movie 1776, when the Congress is voting on whether or not to debate the question of Independence, and Bartlett says “Well, in all my years, I never seen, heard nor smelt an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be TALKED about. Hëll, yes! I’m for debating anything!” Perhaps there are ideas that the world would be better off without. Nazis, the KKK, Racism….the world would be better off without them. So we get rid of them. Then, I decide I don’t like (to use my earlier example) Marilyn Manson. So we arrest him. Then I decide I don’t like Mr. David’s ideas. So we arrest him. then I decide I don’t like your ideas. Welcome to the Gulag my friend. No sane person denies that some ideas are evil, but if we must tolerate a little a little evil to get a lot of good, then I can deal with it. I am watching through The West Wing on DVD, and in the 3d season, there is an episode where Toby is going to credential a Russian reporter who is their version of the Nat’l Inquirer, and someone tells him this. and he says “And if the Nat’l Inquirer asked, we’d credential them. I have to make sure that they are printing whatever they want, because that is the only way I can be sure that the New York Times is printing whatever it wants.” (I just sent the disk back to Netflix, so I am not sure if that is word for word, but it is close. I would fight as much for a skinheads right to SAY what he wants as I would for Mr. David’s right to say what he wants. Now, I personally feel that we should take every opportunity to shut skinheads down. If they so much as spit on the sidewalk they should be arrested. but they can say what they want. And you can say what you want. Ain’t it a great country? I can say Bush Sucks, or Bush Is God, and no one can stop me. Ken, if you are willing to risk any iota of your freedom, I refer you to two more quotes. The First is from Ben Franklin: “Those who would exchange liberty to gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” the second is from Kierkegaard: “How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.”
“Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature….
…shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days
So, you can’t draw a smiley face on the flag but you should be allowed to burn it?
If we’re going to ban flag burning, might I suggest there also be a law that all US Flags be manufactured in the US? How about a law stating that if any good or service is manufactured or performed in the US, the Federal Government of the US can has to buy said service or good from a US company made in the US instead of having our military uniforms made overseas?
While I’m posting let me say this is the exact reason we don’t have school funding here in Texas. The politicians are too busy sticking their noses into things they shouldn’t (gay marriage/adoption, sexy cheerleading, etc…) to do the business of the people. I suggest we all call our congressmen (dial 1877-SOB-USOB and ask for them) and let them know we’d rather they worry about healthcare and education.
Col
This one baffles me. As much as I lean towards conservative (or the hip new phrase Neo-Con liberals are using) on some things Flag burning and Free speech should be left alone. Are we so thin skinned as Americans we can’t take that kind of critisism? I think we’re tougher than that. Every time I hear of one of these types of legislation I want them to go to Arlington cemetary dig up a WW2 soldier and spit in his face because that’s what they are doing anyway. (jeeze, my rhetoric makes me almost sound like a liberal, oh sorry Progressive *snicker*)