"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
- Amendment I, The United States Constitution
That is the text of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, over the years, "speech" has been gradually tranformed in the national dialogue to "expression". This unjustified transformation has allowed things like pornography, sodomy, flag burning, etc to come to be protected under the umbrella of the First Amendment. This is ridiculous bullshit. It's exactly this type of idiot thinking that allows much of the societal decay we see in our culture today to go on unchecked. When an artist puts a crucifix in a jar of urine it's protected because he's expressing himself. When NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) is permitted to exist, it's because these perverts are expressing themselves (even if that expression is through sodomizing minors). When some hippie burns the American flag in protest of war he probably knows nothing about, he's expressing his dissatisfaction with the government. My point is, there has to be a line somewhere. We have laws against public indecency. What if I decide that, to express myself, I want to stand on a busy street corner in the nude? Are the laws against public indecency then unconstitutional since I’m exercising freedom of expression? Of course not. That type of behavior is stupid. It's not hurting anyone, but it is stupid. Much the same can be said of burning the flag. Doing so doesn't hurt anyone, at least not physically (unless they're wrapped in it at the time), but that behavior is aberrant. If flag burning is going to be a protected form of expression, then beating the hell out of anyone burning the flag should be a protected form of expression as well.
In recent weeks, there have been two attempts by Congress to get amendments to the Constitution passed in the Senate and House and eventually on to the States for ratification. The first was aimed at defining marriage. It failed to even come to a vote in the Senate. The second, which failed to pass in the Senate by one vote yesterday, would have given Congress to power to make laws prohibiting the desecration of the flag. Now, while I am vehemently opposed to homosexual "marriage" and flag burning, I think it's a good thing that these proposed amendments failed. Amending the Constitution should not be taken lightly. Added to that, I don't think that these two issues even fall into the jurisdiction of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states that "The powers not delegated to the
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Free "Speech"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I just have a question, because to be honest I'm not really clear on the whole flag-burning issue. what is it about burning the flag that makes it a punishable offense (by state or federal law)? is it on par with other state/federally prohibited activities? what if a cartoonist drew a picture of someone burning a flag? is that the same? I hope this comes out right--I'm not being sarcastic, I just really don't understand this issue.
The whole issue boils down to States' rights. Before the Supreme Court struck them down (I don't know how many years ago), many states had laws prohibiting desecration of the flag. This included burning it among other things. The Supreme Court of monkeys decided these laws violated freedom of "expression". I've read the Constitution myself a number of times and I don't remember there being a clause or amendment about freedom of expression. I do know that the 10th amendment grants to the States powers not expressly granted to the federal government. Since there is no federal law either prohibiting or permitting flag burning, it should be left to each state to decide how the issue is handled within its own borders.
The only time it is normally permissible to burn a flag is if it has touched the ground or has been used to the point that it has become tattered and worn. In these cases, burning the flag is done in a respectful fashion similar, I would suppose, to a cremation. When some asshole burns it to protest something or other, there is no respect involved. I think that most times, people who burn the flag do so simply to get attention, not because it adds anything to their protest. Unfortunately, it is far too seldom that said attention takes the form of an angry mob with baseball bats. The problem I have with flag burning as a vehicle of expression is I think that doing so denigrates the sacrifices made by the men and women of the Armed Forces over the past 250 years. If one is going to burn they flag, one may as well spit on a veteran.
As for a cartoonist, that's a little different. They are merely representing the act, not performing the act itself. Thus, I don't have a problem with that. If I were a Muslim however, I would probably go on a murderous rampage and justify it because of the "offensive" nature of the cartoon.
I guess, and from reading your response I feel this is more true, that this is an issue of public protest vs. quality of the symbol. if someone burned, say, a state's flag then that would be different, right?
It seems like an abnormal amount (to me) of honor and respect for a piece of material when there are other issues that really deserve the attention of the world. is not honoring soldiers from past wars really more important than providing health care and food to every "free" person?
just my two cents.
i can only presume that you were reffering to african americans when you stated, ¨the Supreme Court of monkeys¨...but i can`t ever remember a supreme court full of african americans...
if my presumption is wrong, perhaps it is because the racism, bigotry, and hate-mongering found throughout the rest of your posts led me to believe something false, not unlike the rest of your content. good day, mike.
Way to contribute to debate anon/mike. Well done.
Yes, I would agree. Burning a state flag is different. I assume there are people that do so, but it doesn’t grab headlines the way burning the US flag does. In general (and personally) I don’t think people are honoring the flag itself, so much as what it represents. To me, the flag represents the ideals of America—freedom, justice, equality. It also stands as a symbol of the sacrifices that have been made to preserve those ideals through the tale of years since 1776. It is important to provide healthcare, food, etc to those who can’t provide for themselves. I think Congress has been wasting a lot of time between the flag desecration amendment and the marriage protection amendment. Neither one had a snowball’s chance in hell of passing and the time spent debating them and taking the vote could have been much better spent. The amendments were probably done as a political stunt to try to polarize voters in an election year. If people want to burn something in protest, they should start burning politicians instead of flags. Of course, we’d run out of politicians pretty quickly...
Anonymous: Spoken like a true idiot. If you don't possess the wit to engage in intelligent conversation, at least have the courtesy not to clutter up my blog with your inane ramblings.
there just seems to me to be a litany of areas such as this where the effort does not match the object. I think this is the one thing that should, in the minds of those who follow Christ, place politics in submission to Christ and God's Kingdom. would Jesus be pushing the marriage issue at all? would Jesus care about the flag at all? what would be his priority?
I find it hard, looking at this issue especially, to see where it's worth our time at all. it's like Ann Coulter's new book--okay, perhaps you perceive the Left to be godless...yet its the right bombing the hell out of innocent people, placed in positions of war-stress and personal crisis that help contribute to abberant desires such as to rape and burn another human being after killing her family. that to me deserves more attention...who is godless here?
just my opinion though...
okay, let me clarify "it's the right...bombing..."
that came out more general than it should have. i realize it was a decision (mostly) across the aisle that started this ridiculous war, so the statement above should be expanded. the reality of the statement stands, however.
sorry.
This post is indecent and should be banned. But fortunately the First Amendment is protecting this unspoken expression.
(Disclaimer: this comment is intentional sarcasm to point out the hypocrisy or logical impossibility of enforcing the views of this post in some sort of categorical imperative, and in no ways is intended as a personal attack, nor should be interpreted as representing any elaborated views of the commenter towards the poster, or to the people calling other people idiots...)
Post a Comment