Defacing The Bill of Rights

Modifying the First Amendment to save the flag from a handful of thugs is not worth the hassle; in fact modification would show weakness. One who burns or maliciously defaces the flag — and it better be his own personal property — in public does it at his own peril. As I said a while ago if one thinks he’s funny or damnably heretical, he is free to barbecue the flag that he himself has paid for as long as its on his own property, but not in someone else’s backyard.

There are ordinances about setting things on fire on public property, hardly different from fireworks; the problem is in the enforcement, except when totally egregious such as a nut plucking from graves flags to burn on Memorial Day. But to make flag burning — demonstrative misbehavior, including fat red, white and blue buns parading on beaches  — a free expression issue does a disservice to the First, which clearly engulfs the right to say — though the Fathers of intellect wanted to preserve rational articulation — even some awful things like: depends on what is is, bring it on, or the kicks 9/11 widows get out of their husbands’ demise.


Far worse is Rev. Phelps and his deranged disciples who desecrate cemeteries; this is not an example of freedom of expression but rather direct and sadistic interference with the solemnity of the burial of war heroes — not to mention picketing gay deaths — and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Whether the burial be in a national cemetery or a family plot it is a solemn procession approved by the auspices of government to protect the public and private rights of family. This cult is indeed at risk; for if they continue, the 21 gun salute will be lowered and aimed at these despicable demonstrators.

 

Copyright © 2006 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: June 27, 2006.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com

6,872 views 22 replies
Reply #1 Top
Like you say, if we are going to punish abuse of the flag, I have several neighbors who leave their ragged, weatherbeaten, ignored flags out 24/7, until it becomes unsightly and then they just discard it and buy a new one. I see absolutely no difference in that and burning the flags, beyone the fact that one is done with honestly with purpose, and the other is a pathetic abuse based upon laziness and carelessness.

Every second they spend debating this is a waste of our money. If the people initiate such a debate, fine, but I haven't seen a single thing in the news about it that didn't come from legislators pimping the issue during election season.
Reply #2 Top
Every second they spend debating this is a waste of our money. If the people initiate such a debate, fine, but I haven't seen a single thing in the news about it that didn't come from legislators pimping the issue during election season.
Right on!!
Reply #3 Top

I see absolutely no difference in that and burning the flags, beyone the fact that one is done with honestly with purpose, and the other is a pathetic abuse based upon laziness and carelessness.

Good thing you added the except.

Reply #4 Top
Flag burning is one of those things that hits me pretty hard. While I don't support a ban on flag burning, I think anyone American who would burn the Stars & Stripes is just a coward. All talk, no action. Burning a flag may make a statement about disatisfaction with the country or government, but it does NOTHING to promote change for the better.

Flag burners should just be ignored, laughed at and treated as the no imagination cowards they are.

If someone is exercising their freedom of expression by burning flag in a public place... others should express themselves (and honor their civic duty) by dousing the fire (and burner) with a fire extinguisher. ;~D
Reply #5 Top

Reply By: ParaTed2k

Exactly!  That should be the defining statement on the issue.  And since the Senate rejected it, perhaps it will be.

ostracism is sometimes worse than being a petty criminal.  At least the latter has a chance at redemption.

Reply #6 Top
Simple solution. Write an exception to the existing laws:

One cannot be prosecuted for assault or battery for beating the living daylights out of someone who burns the flag.
Reply #7 Top
Seems the consensus is to ignore it altogether as being too stupid to warrant attention. Sort of laughable as the bra-burning of the 60s, though women's lib denies it ever happened. Then again it can be dangerous when it is a public display leading to violence. 
Reply #8 Top
Things have gotten far worse. I personally feel that national symbols respected by a vast majority of the population should not be defaced or used to score a political point. Having said that, it appears to me that the Bush Administration has gone totally overboard in its attack on New York Times. Freedom of the Press is an absolute freedom and not limited to the interpretations of the powers that be. The people have a right to know what the UDS Government is doing about money trail to terroristrs and like the wire and phone tapping the Bush and the Bushmen have set aside politicasl and constitutional niceities and have started infringing on the freedoms of the US popu,lation. I think it was the great Roman historian LIVYwho said that a state cannot be democracy at home and a tyranny abroad.
Reply #9 Top

Freedom of the Press is an absolute freedom

No it is not.  The freedom ends when you endanger others with your actions.  No Freedom is absolute.  And he is not going overboard.

Reply #10 Top
Things have gotten far worse. I personally feel that national symbols respected by a vast majority of the population should not be defaced or used to score a political point. Having said that, it appears to me that the Bush Administration has gone totally overboard in its attack on New York Times. Freedom of the Press is an absolute freedom and not limited to the interpretations of the powers that be. The people have a right to know what the UDS Government is doing about money trail to terroristrs and like the wire and phone tapping the Bush and the Bushmen have set aside politicasl and constitutional niceities and have started infringing on the freedoms of the US popu,lation. I think it was the great Roman historian LIVYwho said that a state cannot be democracy at home and a tyranny abroad.


Bahu, what does the sedition of the NYT have to do with this thread? Such an American Hating bigot and fool!
Reply #11 Top
"Freedom of the Press is an absolute freedom"


Oddly enough, though Bahu, you were the one that used to lean heavily on O.W. Holmes' idea of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" when it comes to freedom of the press.

I find it odd that on the one hand you think the press should be forced to censor images of Muhammed, and yet in this case freedom of the press is "absolute". Sorry to hang you on your own pitard like that, but frankly it does seem like a hypocritical stance.

P.S. Folks, this can be addressed by actually talking about the topic. I think Bahu was making a statement that both outlawing flag burning and the NYT thing shows an overall disrespect for the first amendment.
Reply #12 Top
I'm still puzzled about the idea that the press can be forced to censor images of Muhammed but they are untouchable otherwise. I remember distinctly reading Bahu's opinion that it was perfectly valid to silence the newspaper if they are causing a dangerous situation in terms of antagonizing Muslims.

...not to be too snide, but I guess antagonizing them is bad, but slipping them some classified information is okay.
Reply #13 Top
I started by saying that venerated symbols should not be disrespected and that is my opinion regatrding the outrageous cartoons as well. Flags are bearers of some sentiment and burning them is not done. It is not a piece of cloth to be used to score political points.

Having said that the cartton issue is not about freedom of the press, it did not inform anybody about anything important. The carttons were meant to hurt the religious sentiments of people and hence there is no moral eqivalence between the cartoon issue and the NYT issue.

As far as NYT is concerned they just informend the American people about the actuions of their own government anf no issue of national security is involved.
Reply #14 Top
That's the worst job you've done dodging the issue so far, Bahu. There's no difference between publishing the cartoons and publishing the classified information if you believe that freedom of the press is ABSOLUTE. It is up to who to decide what is informing people about anything 'important'? You?

No, you are imposing your own subjective standard to decide what is good to allow the press to print, and what shouldn't be allowed. Therefore you obviously DON'T think that freedom of the press is absolute. Given your system it would be free only by the definitions of whoever is in power at the time.
Reply #15 Top
There's no difference between publishing the cartoons and publishing the classified information if you believe that freedom of the press is ABSOLUTE.


As I have said the catoons were designed to inflame, hurt and violently disturb the peace in a sensitive part of the world.

The NYT has not hurt the sentiments of anyone by informing the American people about the actions of their government. You cannot impose the standards of "embedded journaLISM" IN ALL MATTERS ON THE PRETEXT OF NATIONAL SECURITY. iN THAT EVENT THER us GOVERNMENT OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY GOVERNMENT WILL BE BEYOND ANY ACCOUNTABILITY.
Reply #16 Top
Bahu, the only difference is, the NYT hurt people you want to see dead, the cartoons hurt people you consider worthy of living. Bigot!
Reply #17 Top
"As I have said the catoons were designed to inflame, hurt and violently disturb the peace in a sensitive part of the world. The NYT has not hurt the sentiments of anyone by informing the American people about the actions of their government."


On the contrary. You just champion the harm on one side and ignore it on the other. You are motivated to speak out against anti-Islamic propaganda, yet you are tolerate of anti-Bush administration propaganda. It's obvious that the NYT article WAS meant to be inflammatory.

They've been beating this dead horse for months, and this is just another chapter. The second the president's numbers start going up, they find something new that's "scandalous" to post, against the wishes of the government, and defying the fact that it is classified information.

You just approve of one kind of propaganda, while slamming the other. You believe that freedom of the press is absolute when it offends people you don't like, but you think the press can be muzzled when it offends people you play advocate for.
Reply #18 Top
It's obvious that the NYT article WAS meant to be inflammatory.


And the NY Crimes did not run the pictures (the Philly Enquirer did). It is no wonder that the NY Crimes is simply a mouth piece of the left. No one else bothers with it any more.

And Bahu, Baker is right on. Your bigotry is showing.
Reply #19 Top
Freedom of the press is not absolute because it still hinges on the arbitrary judgment of an editorial board whether to print or not. The Times showed poor editorial judgment by publishing old news--everyone knew including terrorists that bank records were being tracked--that's just lousy journalism. As for cartoons it's a matter of taste--some vulgar, some stimulating, most offensive.
Reply #20 Top

As for cartoons it's a matter of taste--some vulgar, some stimulating, most offensive.

And piss Christ and Poop Mary were not?  Yet they saw fit to not only report on them under the guise of 'Freedom of Speech', but to also publish the pictures.

Reply #21 Top
As I have said the catoons were designed to inflame, hurt and violently disturb the peace in a sensitive part of the world.


Says who? Who exactly revealed to you the intent of those cartoonists? Or of the newspapers which published them? And didn't it take months for anyone to get "inflamed, hurt and violently disturbed?" You assume far too much about most subjects you blog on, Bahu. You're good at melodrama but you have absolutely no objectivity.

Cartoons have been an integral part of the press since the invention of the press. Freedom of the press is not absolute, never has been - it's the behavior of the press that is at issue. You didn't like its behavior when it published those cartoons, you loved it when they published state secrets.

I also like how stevendedalus pops in & says, "Aw, what the hell, everybody knew." As if that would let the NYT off the hook. Not so; everybody knew we needed to track the money, not that & how we were actually doing it.
Reply #22 Top
As if that would let the NYT off the hook.
Not off the hook of competence in good, relevant journalism.