NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you support the proposed Flag Protection Amendment?

This would be a Constitutional Amendment to ban seditious desecration of American flags:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

If this passed, wouldn't that just make an incentive for more protests with flag desecrations? For all of you who may support the Flag Protection Amendment, realize that it does stifle free speech. Just because you think flag-burning is disrespectful does not mean that people should not be able - nay, should not have the right - to do it.

Even the conservative Colin Powell, complete with a military background, said, "They may be destroying a piece of cloth but they do no damage to our system of freedom, which tolerates such desecration," and "The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

It amazes me how much support the proposal receives on a consistent basis. Amendments require a 2/3 majority of both bodies of Congress and 3/4 majority of the states. This one makes it through the House and is barely blocked in the Senate. All 50 states have asked for the Flag Protection Amendment to pass through Congress so that the states can vote for it. :headbang:

Colin Powell got it right.

As long as the flag being burned is owned by the person burning it, or is private property the owner of which has given consent to have burned, and isn't about to set someone else's property (or someone else) on fire, let it be burned.

It was rediculous then, it's rediculous now.

I think there should be a moratorium on new constitutional amendments meant to ban things. It's getting outrageous.

It was rediculous then, it's rediculous now.

I think there should be a moratorium on new constitutional amendments meant to ban things. It's getting outrageous.

A constitutional amendment is necessary to impose a moratorium on (read: temporarily ban) amendment proposals that ban things. :D

I do oppose a "flag protection" amendment though, for the same reasons as enumerated by the previous posters.

Flags were made to burn, let 'em burn. Flags were made to fly, let 'em fly. Flags weren't made to land people in jail. Don't let a flag put someone in jail.

This poll result seems very one-sided...

So how is the Flag Protection Amendment getting so much Congressional and State support, then? :headbang:

Flags were made to burn, let 'em burn. Flags were made to fly, let 'em fly. Flags weren't made to land people in jail. Don't let a flag put someone in jail.

I personally have burned hundreds of American flags before... not in protest, but for proper disposal in the presence of veterans. How can it be determined, then, that my flag-burning was not disrespectful and therefore legal? :headbang:

Can you burn the UK's flag? Or is that a crime?

amazes me how much support the proposal receives on a consistent basis. Amendments require a 2/3 majority of both bodies of Congress and 3/4 majority of the states. This one makes it through the House and is barely blocked in the Senate. it. All 50 states have asked for the Flag Protection Amendment to pass through Congress so that the states can vote for


i would like to see a sourse for this ? i follow poltic very closely and i havent heard a word about this i think u have a bad source .

and as a conservative i am realy oposed . all it will do is give the left wing protesters more reason to burn the flag and it shall have more power behind them buring it if its ageast the law lol

Just becasue the states want to vote ON it doesnt mean they will vote FOR it lol =-)

Do you support the proposed Flag Protection Amendment?

This would be a Constitutional Amendment to ban seditious desecration of American flags:



If this passed, wouldn't that just make an incentive for more protests with flag desecrations? For all of you who may support the Flag Protection Amendment, realize that it does stifle free speech. Just because you think flag-burning is disrespectful does not mean that people should not be able - nay, should not have the right - to do it.

Even the conservative Colin Powell, complete with a military background, said, "They may be destroying a piece of cloth but they do no damage to our system of freedom, which tolerates such desecration," and "The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous. I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away."

It amazes me how much support the proposal receives on a consistent basis. Amendments require a 2/3 majority of both bodies of Congress and 3/4 majority of the states. This one makes it through the House and is barely blocked in the Senate. All 50 states have asked for the Flag Protection Amendment to pass through Congress so that the states can vote for it. :headbang:
The right to do it?
How about car burning, I mean if I go out and buy a car I should be allowed to burn it in protest of enviormental damage right?--I mean right out in the street in public, just light that gas guzzler up.
There is no difference right?
Sure, lighting things on fire is 'speech'-didnt the rest of you burn stuff in highschool debate class?
You know when your genuine arguement had stalled and taken a nose dive the teacher would say "Quick-burn their school colors--that will prove your point, and it is speech." yeah, those were the days.

The right to do it?
How about car burning, I mean if I go out and buy a car I should be allowed to burn it in protest of enviormental damage right?--I mean right out in the street in public, just light that gas guzzler up.
There is no difference right?
Sure, lighting things on fire is 'speech'-didnt the rest of you burn stuff in highschool debate class?
You know when your genuine arguement had stalled and taken a nose dive the teacher would say "Quick-burn their school colors--that will prove your point, and it is speech." yeah, those were the days.
*yawn*

Any real argument why we should arrest people for burning a flag?

Unless the proposed amendment includes banning use of the flag as decoration and banning images of the flag napkins, clothing, paper plates, etc. then it has nothing to do with respecting the flag and everything to do with restricting free speech.

And even so, the principles of this nation are supposed to prohibit coercive respect of its symbols.

*yawn*

Any real argument why we should arrest people for burning a flag?
Yes, idiot--you arent allowed to burn anything else in public without consent from the fire department, and permits from the city.
SO why the hell should a dumbass who thinks setting something on fire proves apoint be allowed in public much less allowed to burn anything.
It isnt precisely about the flag--it is about civil ordinance, protestors should not be granted special protection from local FIRE CODES because then want to stamp their feet and piss their pants about how evil their country is, let them go and request a permit, for public burning--set an appointment for a fire marshall to be present and do it legally or be fined and placed in jail.
Burning the flag does not make anyother statement then the people who are protesting are very similar to Beavis and Butthead.

Or of course many parks have lovely public grills specifically designated for burning. There is an alternative to permits.

Here's a neat idea: Burn 50 American flags in each of the State capitols, simultaneously, with a small video crew accompanying each person burning a flag. Perhaps each of the 50 people could explain to the camera exactly why they plan to burn their flag before doing so. It would make, I think, an interesting little project.

Go to your state capital and burn your shirt on the steps--take it off first.
See how your treated.
Tell them you are protesting ...cotton.
SHould I be allowed to set clothes on fire anywhere I please?

SNIP
Even the conservative Colin Powell,
SNIP

I love Colin Powell. Why oh why did he have to ally himself politcally with such a bunch of corrupt miscreants.

McCain/Powell or Powell/McCain (I ain't picky) '08!

Regulation of speech does not mean stifling. Ordinances can prevent you from speaking on a megaphone at midnight, but the ordinances can not forbid you from ever giving the speech. Similarly, in respect of regulation by local ordinances, desecration of your own personal flag should not by forbidden.

The suggestion doesn't say just burning the flag, it says desecrate.
I'm not American, but I would agree to the suggestion if it protected the flag of any nation from desecration on US soil.
And yes, I would expect the same from other nations.
As far as burning, certainly in Canada, and I believe in the US, the only acceptable way to dispose of a used or worn out flag is by burning (respectfully)

Yes, idiot--you arent allowed to burn anything else in public without consent from the fire department, and permits from the city.
SO why the hell should a dumbass who thinks setting something on fire proves apoint be allowed in public much less allowed to burn anything.
It isnt precisely about the flag--it is about civil ordinance, protestors should not be granted special protection from local FIRE CODES because then want to stamp their feet and piss their pants about how evil their country is, let them go and request a permit, for public burning--set an appointment for a fire marshall to be present and do it legally or be fined and placed in jail.
Burning the flag does not make anyother statement then the people who are protesting are very similar to Beavis and Butthead.
Are we talking about the same subject?

Because I was pretty sure I was defending the right to deface a flag just like you have the right to speak out against your country's actions...and you are going off on fire codes.

So...do you have a problem with me cutting up a flag in the privacy of my home?

The right to do it?
How about car burning, I mean if I go out and buy a car I should be allowed to burn it in protest of enviormental damage right?--I mean right out in the street in public, just light that gas guzzler up.
There is no difference right?
Sure, lighting things on fire is 'speech'-didnt the rest of you burn stuff in highschool debate class?
You know when your genuine arguement had stalled and taken a nose dive the teacher would say "Quick-burn their school colors--that will prove your point, and it is speech." yeah, those were the days.

Apperantly someone hasn't read his history books. The founding fathers frequently burned British Flags, British Soldier Uniforms (or mockups), and mockups of the king (called Effigies). It's been a form of political protest that has been encouraged since year -10 in this country.

Yes, idiot--you arent allowed to burn anything else in public without consent from the fire department, and permits from the city.
SO why the hell should a dumbass who thinks setting something on fire proves apoint be allowed in public much less allowed to burn anything.
It isnt precisely about the flag--it is about civil ordinance, protestors should not be granted special protection from local FIRE CODES because then want to stamp their feet and piss their pants about how evil their country is, let them go and request a permit, for public burning--set an appointment for a fire marshall to be present and do it legally or be fined and placed in jail.
Burning the flag does not make anyother statement then the people who are protesting are very similar to Beavis and Butthead.

Requiring you to get a burning permit, or whatever it happens to be called, does not remove your right to burn a flag. It's just that you'll get in trouble for violating fire code, then - not for specifically having burned a flag.

Regulation of speech does not mean stifling. Ordinances can say prevent you from speaking on a megaphone at midnight, but the ordinances can not forbid you from ever giving the speech. Similarly, in respect of regulation by local ordinances, desecration of your own personal flag should not by forbidden.
It should be regulated as it already is however---if burning a flag is legal, then what size is too big for public burning---at what point must the fire department be present---since flag burning is legal in public then what about tire burning?
I own the tires they are my property to use at my personal descretion(s/p?)
Is it legal to burn any bundle of cloth in public as long as you own it?
At what point is too much too much?
If your are allowed to burn in public one piece of your property, then why not another?
You are to be regulated at some point, why is it wrong to make that point the flag?
Why is forcing someone to go and get a permit wrong.
I cant even get a permit to burn my leaves anymore--it is illegal-on my own property with my own leaves--so why should someone else be allowed to set things on fire in public?
Making flag burning illegal is not infringing on protestors rights--it is making them equal to everyone else who is allowed to set to fire anything they choose suits their particular idea at the mooment.

i would like to see a sourse for this ? i follow poltic very closely and i havent heard a word about this i think u have a bad source .

I wouldn't call the government's published voting records a bad source.
Here are some of the Congressional records. Try arguing with these. :rolleyes:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108w0HX0G::
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HJ00004:@@@X

I won't go through finding the 50 resolutions from the states, but you can find them, too, if you want.

Requiring you to get a burning permit, or whatever it happens to be called, does not remove your right to burn a flag. It's just that you'll get in trouble for violating fire code, then - not for specifically having burned a flag.
DUh, thats my point.
They dont need a permit.
And protestors resist the permit option as "it is just another attempt to impede them from exercising their rights".
Setting sht on fire is not a Right!

There's no need to make a special issue out of flags. Either you can burn something somewhere, or you cant. Why make a special law for particularily patterned peices of cloth?

There's no need to make a special issue out of flags. Either you can burn something somewhere, or you cant. Why make a special law for particularily patterned peices of cloth?
Damned right!! All or nothing.

DUh, thats my point.
They dont need a permit.
And protestors resist the permit option as "it is just another attempt to impede them from exercising their rights".
Setting sht on fire is not a Right!

But my point is that setting "sht" on fire is indeed a right, if deemed to be an expression of free speech. The requirement of a permit does not alter its being a right. Not having a permit will not have you arrested for setting "sht" on fire, but for breaking fire codes, or ordinances, or what have you.

So...do we have anyone who would criminalize cutting a flag with a scissors?

Cause that's what the amendment does.

Bedou has yet to make an argument in favor of the flag protection amendment.

It should be regulated as it already is however---if burning a flag is legal, then what size is too big for public burning---at what point must the fire department be present---since flag burning is legal in public then what about tire burning?
I own the tires they are my property to use at my personal descretion(s/p?)
Is it legal to burn any bundle of cloth in public as long as you own it?
At what point is too much too much?
If your are allowed to burn in public one piece of your property, then why not another?
You are to be regulated at some point, why is it wrong to make that point the flag?
Why is forcing someone to go and get a permit wrong.
I cant even get a permit to burn my leaves anymore--it is illegal-on my own property with my own leaves--so why should someone else be allowed to set things on fire in public?
Making flag burning illegal is not infringing on protestors rights--it is making them equal to everyone else who is allowed to set to fire anything they choose suits their particular idea at the mooment.

It's easy to answer the bulk of that. Ordinances are LOCAL. If one area thinks that burning flags is hazardous in public, for example, then an ordinance could require people to have fire permits or limit flag desecration to cutting. If another area thinks that burning nylon flags is hazardous to the environment, then another ordinance could limit burning to canvas flags.

The point is that giving Congress the power to stop flag desecration with this proposed Constitutional Amendment is limiting the REASON that someone is desecrating the flag instead of the particular, locally-regulated method.

Are we talking about the same subject?

Because I was pretty sure I was defending the right to deface a flag just like you have the right to speak out against your country's actions...and you are going off on fire codes.

So...do you have a problem with me cutting up a flag in the privacy of my home?
No we are not talking about the same thing---I am talking about RIGHTS.
You are facinated by some piece of cloth.
I could care less if sat around all day urinating on American flags in your house.
What I am saying is that protestors should be given special allowance over everyone to just burn the flag--that is not equal protection.
There is no constitutional right protecting setting thigns on fire in public.
Therefore if it is to legal for one thing(simply as a matter of right to use your property as you see fit) then it must apply ot everyone with all things.
The flag means nothing to the people burning it-therefore the act is meaningless. WHo cares.
What I care about, is that an hour after some guy gets to legally burn the flag-- Igo out and set my bed sheet on fire in the middle of downtown and I am going to jail, that is again not equal protection.
Get your your obession with some obsurd ideal of the great protest and realize that allowing flag burning is pissing on millions of Americans who are forbidden many things equal to the act of flag burning--such as not being allowed to burn your leaves which in my city is about a thirty years old law.
All or nothing.

It's easy to answer the bulk of that. Ordinances are LOCAL. If one area thinks that burning flags is hazardous in public, for example, then an ordinance could require people to have fire permits or limit flag desecration to cutting. If another area thinks that burning nylon flags is hazardous to the environment, then another ordinance could limit burning to canvas flags.

The point is that giving Congress the power to stop flag desecration with this proposed Constitutional Amendment is limiting the REASON that someone is desecrating the flag instead of the particular, locally-regulated method.
I cant argue with that.
Then the matter now relates to enforcement.

such as not being allowed to burn your leaves which in my city is about a thirty years old law.

Notice that that's a LOCAL ordinance, not a Congressional statute. :rolleyes:

I cant argue with that.
Then the matter now relates to enforcement.

Ok... *sighs with relief* :)

Bedou has yet to make an argument in favor of the flag protection amendment.
I am not trying to, so that would be a pretty good reason why it hasnt happened yet.
I am argueing for equal protection. We were on the subject of burning.
Chod, has moved on to scissors---
I mean get creative soak it in blood and then paint the name Bush on one pittbull and cheneny on a rotty and them tear it to peices.
DOnt let them fight over it though.

I find it ridiculous personally...

What I find far more disrespectful than protestors burning a US flag, is all the self-proclaimed "patriotic americans" who hand flags from car windows, facing the wrong direction, drapped over walls and touching the ground.... and the plethora of other violations these "torrie morons" (oops, did I say that? I meant "patriots") do against flag etiquet....

No we are not talking about the same thing---I am talking about RIGHTS.
You are facinated by some piece of cloth.
I could care less if sat around all day urinating on American flags in your house.
What I am saying is that protestors should be given special allowance over everyone to just burn the flag--that is not equal protection.
There is no constitutional right protecting setting thigns on fire in public.
Therefore if it is to legal for one thing(simply as a matter of right to use your property as you see fit) then it must apply ot everyone with all things.
The flag means nothing to the people burning it-therefore the act is meaningless. WHo cares.
What I care about, is that an hour after some guy gets to legally burn the flag-- Igo out and set my bed sheet on fire in the middle of downtown and I am going to jail, that is again not equal protection.
Get your your obession with some obsurd ideal of the great protest and realize that allowing flag burning is pissing on millions of Americans who are forbidden many things equal to the act of flag burning--such as not being allowed to burn your leaves which in my city is about a thirty years old law.
All or nothing.

I see.

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with amending the national constitution to criminalize defacing the flag.

As far as this amendment goes.
If it passes I want to see every assh0le with an American flag shirt carted off to jail-I hate that.
I want ot see my neighbor who leaves his flag out on the rain--yup--carted off to jail.
That prick down the street from me with flag paint job on his mustang--bye bye.
Those flag tooth picks(TOOTH PICKS FOR GOODNESS SAKES!!) send that guy to Jail to.
If defacing includes all manner of ill handling(as it should).
Other then that--the Amendment itself would not be equal protection.

I see.

However, that has absolutely nothing to do with amending the national constitution to criminalize defacing the flag.
CHod, the subject started with specifcally "Burning" the flag.
I have a problem with that-obviously- I stated my reasons.
I would support that Amendment if it meant equal protection---which is what this country is supposed to be about.
So my opinion does have something to do with the issue--just not directly.

The right to do it?
How about car burning, I mean if I go out and buy a car I should be allowed to burn it in protest of enviormental damage right?--I mean right out in the street in public, just light that gas guzzler up.
There is no difference right?
Sure, lighting things on fire is 'speech'-didnt the rest of you burn stuff in highschool debate class?
You know when your genuine arguement had stalled and taken a nose dive the teacher would say "Quick-burn their school colors--that will prove your point, and it is speech." yeah, those were the days.

Yes, I can honestly say that I did that :p

I'll try asking this again...

The poll currently stands at 3 aye, 51 nay, 0 other.
So why is the proposal always so close to ratification? :headbang:

I have mixed views. There is the soldier side of the family that is for it then there is my Constitutional side this is against.

Probably the best arguement against:

"America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center-stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the land of the free."

President Andrew Sheppard
The American President

Hmmmm....

Will they stop people from putting it on stickers, using it in political ads, wearing it on clothing, folding it up and putting it in a plastic baggie, and flying it from their car window?

While I generally fight for free speech, if they are truly going to live up to the rules about the flag, I *might* consider it.

Will they stop people from putting it on stickers, using it in political ads, wearing it on clothing, folding it up and putting it in a plastic baggie, and flying it from their car window?

This made me think of an interesting point...

Showing a flag in a political ad is using the image of the flag to manipulate the opinions of those who see it to get or keep people in positions of power. So is using a flag in a political ad actually a desecration of it? Is manipulative use of the flag a desecration of its purity?

Could we ever draw a line to say what actually is desecration? What if someone cuts a flag up not to protest but to rearrange the pieces to make art? etc...

This made me think of an interesting point...

Showing a flag in a political ad is using the image of the flag to manipulate the opinions of those who see it to get or keep people in positions of power. So is using a flag in a political ad actually a desecration of it? Is manipulative use of the flag a desecration of its purity?

Could we ever draw a line to say what actually is desecration? What if someone cuts a flag up not to protest but to rearrange the pieces to make art? etc...

There are rules in place on how to treat the flag. Using it for personal gain (ie. political ads) is against the rules, as is putting it on clothing, etc.

Strangely enough, burning it *is* in the rules, as what you are supposed to do when the flag gets soiled. One could argue that those who burn the flag in "protest" are doing so because the current administration has soiled the very ideals of America - and thus the flag.

There are rules in place on how to treat the flag. Using it for personal gain (ie. political ads) is against the rules, as is putting it on clothing, etc.

Strangely enough, burning it *is* in the rules, as what you are supposed to do when the flag gets soiled. One could argue that those who burn the flag in "protest" are doing so because the current administration has soiled the very ideals of America - and thus the flag.

These rules surely are not codified law, are they? Aren't they just military etiquette? I distinctly remember seeing a Russ Feingold ad that showed an American flag with a "Made in China" label during this last election. http://www.russfeingold.org/play_video.php?video=made_in_the_usa_2&format=wmv I also see many clothes with flags on them including the flag itself used as a bandana.

The amendment is too vague. What if someone made their own flag, say, out of construction paper and then burned it?

I'll try asking this yet another time...

The poll currently stands at 7 aye, 60 nay, 1 other.
So why is the proposal always so close to ratification? :headbang:

I'll try asking this yet another time...

The poll currently stands at 7 aye, 60 nay, 1 other.
So why is the proposal always so close to ratification? :headbang:

The people answering are mainly blue states or foreign.....

The people answering are mainly blue states or foreign.....

Did you read all of my post? EVERY state, red and blue, has passed a resolution asking for the proposal to pass through Congress.

No matter how angry I get at flag-burners, I cannot stop them. (and neither should this amendment) they, just as much as I do have the right to express themselves in as distasteful a manner as they want.

Didn't Voltaire say something relevant to this situation? something along the lines of "I may disagree w/every word you say but I will defend your right to say it, to the death" or something like that

Didn't Voltaire say something relevant to this situation? something along the lines of "I may disagree w/every word you say but I will defend your right to say it, to the death" or something like that

hmm...

My quick internet research reveals that the quote is only an attribution. The quote actually appeared in a 1906 work by S. G. Tallentyre.

i saw pat schroeder (former US representative from colorado) on that bill maher show on HBO

she made great sense

she said


WHY NOT JUST MANDATE THAT THE FLAG BE MADE OUT OF FLAME RETARDANT MATERIAL?

i saw pat schroeder (former US representative from colorado) on that bill maher show on HBO

she made great sense

she said


WHY NOT JUST MANDATE THAT THE FLAG BE MADE OUT OF FLAME RETARDANT MATERIAL?

That wouldn't prevent people from other desecrations like cutting, tearing, trampling, soiling, ...

These rules surely are not codified law, are they? Aren't they just military etiquette? I distinctly remember seeing a Russ Feingold ad that showed an American flag with a "Made in China" label during this last election. http://www.russfeingold.org/play_video.php?video=made_in_the_usa_2&format=wmv I also see many clothes with flags on them including the flag itself used as a bandana.

Yes, they are codified law.

However, they are unenforcable as per the 1st Amendment.

Yes, idiot--you arent allowed to burn anything else in public without consent from the fire department, and permits from the city.
SO why the hell should a dumbass who thinks setting something on fire proves apoint be allowed in public much less allowed to burn anything.
It isnt precisely about the flag--it is about civil ordinance, protestors should not be granted special protection from local FIRE CODES because then want to stamp their feet and piss their pants about how evil their country is, let them go and request a permit, for public burning--set an appointment for a fire marshall to be present and do it legally or be fined and placed in jail.
Burning the flag does not make anyother statement then the people who are protesting are very similar to Beavis and Butthead.



Wow, you really, REALLY missed the point.

The debate isnt about burning things in public, It is about the right to desecrate the flag.

It is a right that people in totalitarian regimes do not enjoy but people in free societies do.

These rules surely are not codified law, are they? Aren't they just military etiquette? I distinctly remember seeing a Russ Feingold ad that showed an American flag with a "Made in China" label during this last election. http://www.russfeingold.org/play_video.php?video=made_in_the_usa_2&format=wmv I also see many clothes with flags on them including the flag itself used as a bandana.

The point is that practically everyone who wants flag burning to be illegal says that they believe burning the flag is disrespectful of this nation, and the accomplishments of the people who have fought, etc etc.

Flag ettiquite is all about how to respect the flag. Burning (except under proper disposal of a worn flag) is just one form of that disrespect.

If someone is for a law saying the flag must be respected then ALL THE RULES OF FLAG ETTIQUITE must be enforced. Otherwise, one is just using flag ettiquite as a pretext for hampering freedom of expression, and thus spitting on both the constitution and the flag.

banning flag burning would take away even more of our right and this crap is really starting to piss me off when i have my infinate powers back im gonna start destroying ppl.

The point is that practically everyone who wants flag burning to be illegal says that they believe burning the flag is disrespectful of this nation, and the accomplishments of the people who have fought, etc etc.

Flag ettiquite is all about how to respect the flag. Burning (except under proper disposal of a worn flag) is just one form of that disrespect.

If someone is for a law saying the flag must be respected then ALL THE RULES OF FLAG ETTIQUITE must be enforced. Otherwise, one is just using flag ettiquite as a pretext for hampering freedom of expression, and thus spitting on both the constitution and the flag.

No one has yet replied to my post.

One could argue that burning the flag in protest of something your country has done is *not* disrespectful. After all, if you believe that your country has done something that goes against the ideals upon which this country was founded, then the country (and therefore the flag) *are* soiled (in a figurative sense). Therefore, burning it is actually the *right* thing to do.

A flag is nothing more than a symbol. The thing is, what it symbolizes isn't the same to everybody.

To some Americans, the American flag represents all the good things they see in America, whatever those may be.

To others, it's a reminder of all the faults they see in America, whatever those faults may be.

Objectively, a flag is a hunk of dyed cloth. It symbolizes nothing more than the government that is in charge of a particular plot of land.

So when somebody is burning a flag, what they are saying, and what you are hearing may well be two very differant things. The same goes with a burning ban.

Actually, in many cases, flag-burners associate the flag with freedom, justice, etc. as much as do those against it's burning. Many of them burn it to represent their view that America no longer upholds the values it claims to. Values like tolerance, freedom of expression, etc.

No one has yet replied to my post.

One could argue that burning the flag in protest of something your country has done is *not* disrespectful. After all, if you believe that your country has done something that goes against the ideals upon which this country was founded, then the country (and therefore the flag) *are* soiled (in a figurative sense). Therefore, burning it is actually the *right* thing to do.

I fully agree this. That - along with the way that some people wish to cherry-pick which parts of flag ettiquite must be codified into constitutional law-
seems to indicate that the people who want to stop flag burning are wishing to stop visual forms of dissent and thus tearing down the idea of freedom upon which this nation was established.

Damn it Americans need to get into the 21st Century. Flag burning is perfectly acceptable. The hellhole we all live in needs to be destroyed...as long as I'm on vacation in Canada. :D

I'm a member of the BPOE. They are strongly opposed to flag burning, and have pressured government to have it criminalized. Still, I personally think it's a freedom of speech issue. I wouldn't make it illegal.