Flag Amendment

Ok, if you have been watching the news lately, you've noticed about the Burning of our Countries Colors to be banned. It missed being passed by one vote, thus not getting the 2/3's of the votes to get it ratified. This seems to be a ho topic at the moment; being on a lot of radio and tv news shows.

But my question is, what is your thoughts on it. Don't give spam answers of "it's just not right", "It's stupid", etc. Back up your opinion on it.

In my own personal opinion, I think that it is somewhat taking away our freedom of Speech. According to our First amendment we have freedom of Religion, Assembly, Petition, Press, and Speech. If we take away our ability to burn the Flag in protest and speaking out of wrong doing of the Gov't, then in turn, we are taking away part of our Constitutional Right of the First Amendment.

I personally am not one to go out and burn a flag in protest of the Gov't. I see it more fit to find a solution through more simple means of "talking it out" I guess you would say. The burning of the Flag used in protests is usually no more than a way to smack the Gov't in the face and tell them to pay attention, so the protesters can get there 15 secs. of fame on TV or Radio and let the people hear what they want to say.

-NC

I'm split on this issue.

For one, it is limiting the freedom of expression for people. However... The freedom of expression applies as long as the expression isn't offensive in any way.

On the other side, I think that people should not be burning their flags. The flag is not a symbol of government, oh no. It is a symbol of the nation, it's people, and it's pride. If they don't love their nation, they can go move somewhere else.

So, I would say my patriotic side wins on this issue...

Burning the nation's flag is a sign of a total lack of respect for anything about the US. If you're going to do that, you might as well not even be in this country. There are other ways to protest besides burning the flag. And most people who do probably do it just to get attention.

Originally Posted by NobleCucco

According to our First amendment we have freedom of Religion, Assembly, Petition, Press, and Speech.

None of those applies to flag burning. It is not freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition or press .

I guess their banning expression of 'treason' essentially.

I think there is a similar thing here in the uk. We arnt allowed to burn money because it can be seen as defacing the queen. And in an old law somewhere that is seen as treason.

However I think in "FREE" countries such as ours that we should have the right to do what WE believe in. (that includes flag burning)

And, technically, if you want to properly dispose of a flag that is worn/ too tattered to be of use, you burn it. That, according to the millitary is the one 'kosher' way to put to rest an American flag. My personal scruples say that if we're allowed to burn other countries' flags than why not our own? Remember that rash of anti-French sentiment a while back? People burned French flags (ironic, considering the similiar color scheme) and in early middle-east conflicts such as our dealings with Iran in the late-eighties, early ninties, American citizens burned Iranian flags and efegies. So if we can be racist and zenophobic about everything else, why not our own country?

Yawn. Burning a flag is treason?

Just how, do you think, might I dispose of a flag that is past its prime? Ought I put it in a shrine and hang it above my toilet with a plaque saying: job well done? Do I need to give it a proper burrial with the 21 gun salute and blessings from the pope? Come on, people. Burning your flag can mean a variety of things, treason amongst them. Let's not, however, jump to hasty conclusions. I guarentee that there are plenty of more malicious things, as well as far more pursuasive things that I could do to display my distaste for the government, shooting someone and writing a piece of satire are two things that come to mind.

Here's an idea, how about you try again with the flag-burning amendment, only this time include a couple of the following clauses:
A citizen of the U.S. is not allowed to disagree with the Exectutive branch.
All flags produced within the borders of the U.S. are to be given full citizenship in the U.S.
For flags created beyond the borders, if they can show proof of occupation, or that their parent-flags were created within the U.S., then, pending a English competency test, shall that flag be given citizen ship.
And finally: the previous clause will be void in the case that it is found that the flag in question has burned another flag (that includes itself).

I think that here we have a very well thought out law. We've elliminated all chances of disagreeing with the powers that be, even amongst flags. (flags representing all that bologna that previous posts say they do)

As it were, I probably ought to remove my collection of flags from the heap of cow patties in which I'm storing them. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it's obviously better than burning them.

Originally Posted by Moonlit Child

And, technically, if you want to properly dispose of a flag that is worn/ too tattered to be of use, you burn it. That, according to the millitary is the one 'kosher' way to put to rest an American flag. My personal scruples say that if we're allowed to burn other countries' flags than why not our own? Remember that rash of anti-French sentiment a while back? People burned French flags (ironic, considering the similiar color scheme) and in early middle-east conflicts such as our dealings with Iran in the late-eighties, early ninties, American citizens burned Iranian flags and efegies. So if we can be racist and zenophobic about everything else, why not our own country?

A. Well, "putting to rest" an old and tattered flag... There is nothing wrong with that. However, if it is perfectly in good shape, one will be insulting the pride of his/her country.

B. I agree that it is wrong to show disrespect to the flags of other nations. But, don't you agree, that a person living in a nation should have strong nationalism and pride for their nation? Should they love their nation more than any other nation? That is why burning an American flag is worse than a foreign flag.

C. I don't think it is right if you put it in terms of "racism"; that card is overused. Instead of advocating, "If we can burn their flags, why not ours?", why not advocate "It is wrong to show disrespect to a flag, period."?

Originally Posted by Hyleaus

Yawn. Burning a flag is treason?

Just how, do you think, might I dispose of a flag that is past its prime?

Burning a flag in protest is treason. Nobody cares if you light a fire in your backyard and burn up some old stuff.

Burning your flag is not treason, it's merely saying that you don't agree with things that the gov't is doing. In some cases it is Treason, but not always.

-NC

You know.. sometimes a flag is just a flag, if you have a reason to burn a flag, do it in your own privacy...

And hell, even if you are caught burning the flag in protest, it's quite a silly charge... "So what are you in the dog pound for eh maddog?, 'I Burned a flag'"

Originally Posted by vacumgod

'I Burned a flag'"

Or more to the point "I despise the country of America and am publicly burning the symbols of the nation as an act of defiance against authority."

Ok Don't give me a lame reason like "Oh, I sould be able to burn my countries flag. If others don't let me then they are taking away my rights of the first amendment." Well if that is the case how about i go out and totaly destroy any thing that has the colors red, whit, and blue in it. Thats right it could mean peoples houses are going down. All for the sake of "how much this countries gov. is pissing me off." Come on, give me a freaking break. The only time i think it sould be ok to burn your countries flag is from what Andross said.

A. Well, "putting to rest" an old and tattered flag... There is nothing wrong with that. However, if it is perfectly in good shape, one will be insulting the pride of his/her country.

Other than that there should be no reason. If you hate America's gov. that much that your going to go out and waist your time burning the nation's not the gov. flag, then why don't you just leave and go somewhere else instead of waisting your own time? Because your not burning the gov. your burning the pride of the people of America.

Good to see our Congress is working on all the important issues

I think of the flag as a flag. Oh, I know what it represents and all, and I respect that. America is my home, and I'm proud of it.

I don't think of the flag as a diety. "Oh no! I touched the flag to the ground, it must be burned!" Ridiculous. It wastes the flag, and it doesn't help anyone. If the flag gets dirty, wash it. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't we wash America when it gets dirty (rhetorically)? I respect what the flag stands for, not the flag itself.

It is a nice show of respect to give it a proper "buriel" of sorts, if the flag is worn out and has seen many years. If it's brand new, who cares. I agree that the flags shouldn't just be thrown away in the garbage, but it's impractical to burn every single one.

If you're against the Bush administration, burn a picture of the president. Burning the flag of your nation isn't, in my opinion, a display of anything but misdirected disrespect. Hating your country and hating what the government is doing with your country are two very different things.

Still, I don't think an amendment is needed. If people want to flaunt their ignorance by means of burning their own country's flag, let them.

People should have the right to burn flags, but that doesn't mean the media should jump on it. Flag burning should not be payed attention to because of the ignorance required to do it. Our constitution lets us do it, but the flag represents our country and without our country there is no constitution.

We had a lengthy debate about this in class, and the general consensus was this:

Flag burning should be allowed because it is a form of expression that does not infringe upon the rights of others, nor cause a clear and present danger. Or something like that.

What we have to understand about the first amendment is that it protects all speech (except libel, slander, or speech that causes a clear and present danger--yelling "BOMB" in an airport for example). There's no point to having the first amendment if it only protects speech/expression that we find tasteful . . . who cares? If you have no problem with something, what is the point of protecting it? No, the first amendment really only kicks in when we find speech/expression offensive and hateful.

Good to see our Congress is working on all the important issues

Good point.