Flag burning, Constitutional?

[HeavenLord]

This was one of my threads from another forum and I thought about bringing it here.
Flag burning has been a problem in this country for many years and people today still debate whether it should be illegal or not. In 1963 a man was protesting at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas and burned an American flag while chanting "red, white, and blue, we spit on you" I don't remember what point he was trying to prove or his intentions but he was fined $2000 and sentenced to 1 year in jail. He did not disturb the peace and his court was appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision as it violated his 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. I guess it was so severe in 1963 because they were like mad patriotic. I was just wondering what HD's thoughts on this were. I think that he shouldn't have gone to jail or be fined that much. It is our right to symbolic speech.

 

[Magic Arrow]

First you have to read out the first amendment and define it. I will quote a definition given by Answers.com.

The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.

By burning a flag in public, you are merely voicing your opinion. Whether burning a flag is physical or vocal is another debate, you are still in one way or another voicing you opinion. It still falls under Freedom of Speech. So as far as I see it, it is constitutional.

 

[Tgump]

By burning a flag in public, you are merely voicing your opinion. Whether burning a flag is physical or vocal is another debate, you are still in one way or another voicing you opinion. It still falls under Freedom of Speech. So as far as I see it, it is constitutional.

Entirely my thoughts. There's no sacred law that should exist to prevent burning a flag - the American flag (as is all other symbolic flags) is worth no more than the material it's made of.

 

[Wilson1992]

In my opinion your disrespecting the country, it's people, it's history and its government you live under. If you hate someone or a group in particular for their ideas or actions you can voice your opinions based on that but disrespect to a flag is quite serious to me.

 

[Swan]

"Hey guys! Look! I'm burning a piece of cloth! OMYGOD."

Would someone care to explain what is so serious about it?

 

[Magic Arrow]

"Hey guys! Look! I'm burning a piece of cloth! OMYGOD."

Would someone care to explain what is so serious about it?

You ask quite an interesting question. The "cloth" itself is worthless. However, on that "cloth" may be a metaphorical emblem which signifies meaning, and ultimately importance. You can take the bible as an example. Burning it may be regarded as burning a book. However, burning this particular book, which contains significant importance to it's followers, could anger certain members. That is why it's so serious.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

It's a flag. A piece of cloth with a design on it. If it bothers you that I'm burning a piece of my property then you need to grow up.
As to whether it's consitutional? No idea, but I think you could fit it in under freedom of expression, provided the fire isn't dangerous.

 

[Feren Silver]

In my opinion your disrespecting the country, it's people, it's history and its government you live under. If you hate someone or a group in particular for their ideas or actions you can voice your opinions based on that but disrespect to a flag is quite serious to me.

But it's your choice what you do with your first amendment rights. I don't think you squarely need to set your ideas off what other people did. No, I don't support the idea of flag burning, but I support having the right to choose whether or not to do it.

 

[Straggler]

It's just a damn piece of cloth, the sentence shouldn't be any more than if you were burning a blank flag.

 

[FreedomFight]

This was one of my threads from another forum and I thought about bringing it here.
Flag burning has been a problem in this country for many years and people today still debate whether it should be illegal or not. In 1963 a man was protesting at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas and burned an American flag while chanting "red, white, and blue, we spit on you" I don't remember what point he was trying to prove or his intentions but he was fined $2000 and sentenced to 1 year in jail. He did not disturb the peace and his court was appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision as it violated his 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. I guess it was so severe in 1963 because they were like mad patriotic. I was just wondering what HD's thoughts on this were. I think that he shouldn't have gone to jail or be fined that much. It is our right to symbolic speech.

If I remember my AP government correctly, he was officially indicted for inciting a riot.

 

[TJ]

In my opinion your disrespecting the country, it's people, it's history and its government you live under. If you hate someone or a group in particular for their ideas or actions you can voice your opinions based on that but disrespect to a flag is quite serious to me.

Its a piece of cloth, you can make another. You shouldn't get offended because of someone burning cloth.

You ask quite an interesting question. The "cloth" itself is worthless. However, on that "cloth" may be a metaphorical emblem which signifies meaning, and ultimately importance. You can take the bible as an example. Burning it may be regarded as burning a book. However, burning this particular book, which contains significant importance to it's followers, could anger certain members. That is why it's so serious.

See above.

 

[Magic Arrow]

Its a piece of cloth, you can make another. You shouldn't get offended because of someone burning cloth.

I am not saying it should be illegal. I am merely stating why I believe people would get offended. By burning you are doing one of two things;
a) Voicing your opinion
b) Doing it intentionally to disrespect people

I am saying this generally and not specifically on the subject of flags. I believe that the burning of religious books should be condemned, yet not made illegal, as nothing is gained in it.

To back up my answer, if you may recall, those Swedish (if my memory serves right) illustrators who depicted the Muslim Prophet Muhammed as a terrorist used nothing but Freedom of Speech to gain permission and support to do it, even though they were disrespecting the whole muslim community (which is over a billon people).

 

[Easter Bunny2]

This was one of my threads from another forum and I thought about bringing it here.
Flag burning has been a problem in this country for many years and people today still debate whether it should be illegal or not. In 1963 a man was protesting at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas and burned an American flag while chanting "red, white, and blue, we spit on you" I don't remember what point he was trying to prove or his intentions but he was fined $2000 and sentenced to 1 year in jail. He did not disturb the peace and his court was appealed to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision as it violated his 1st amendment right to freedom of speech. I guess it was so severe in 1963 because they were like mad patriotic. I was just wondering what HD's thoughts on this were. I think that he shouldn't have gone to jail or be fined that much. It is our right to symbolic speech.

Ok, well lets evaluate this:

First, the 1963 case. In 1963, the U.S. was locked in a "War" with the Soviet Union, the Cold War. At this time, patriotism was not a choice, it was a requirement. To disrespect ones nation at the time was to be the enemy. So, a more recent case would be a reasonable example but in 1963 more were convicted for simpler acts.

Now, is it constitutional? Yes. Legal? No. A constitutional act is one that follows the outline of the constitution. A flag burner has the right to voice his opinion but not to voice it through the desecration of the national flag. The constitutional act of speaking freely was accompanied by the illegal act of burning a flag. (Laws produced by About.com, Author: Tom Head)

Finally, your last sentence "It is our right to symbolic speech." We have NO right to free symbolic speech. Oftentimes people over interpret the constitution so they can commit crimes. The freedom of speech is such that one can say anything concerning their government, family, foreign governments, etc. So, do not over interpret the constitution, its words are exactly what they mean.

So, to conclude, is flag burning right? In a nutshell, no. If you must communicate your message through the act of desecrating your entire country's flag then you should evaluate your ideals. The point of freedom of speech is that you may speak your opinion WITHOUT burning a flag.

 

[running down a dream]

easter why is flag burning not right??

freedom of speech didnt say anything about points or anything

 

[Easter Bunny2]

easter why is flag burning not right??

freedom of speech didnt say anything about points or anything

Flag burning is destroying the symbol of a nation that has given you the right to speak freely and live your own life. In some other countries you could be prosecuted or even killed for this. Flag burning is not right because it desecrates the symbol of a free nation for a case that concerns one person or a certain group of people inside the nation.

And could you clarify on what you mean by "freedom of speech didnt say anything about points or anything?"

 

[saberd]

By burning a flag in public, you are merely voicing your opinion. Whether burning a flag is physical or vocal is another debate, you are still in one way or another voicing you opinion. It still falls under Freedom of Speech. So as far as I see it, it is constitutional.

I completely agree with you. I did a little research on the U.S. Flag Code and found this quote about the legalities of disrespecting the flag:

The United States Flag Code establishes advisory rules for display and care of the flag of the United States. It is Section 1 of Title 4 of the United States Code (4 U.S.C. § 1 et seq). This is a U.S. federal law, but there is no penalty for failure to comply with it and it is not widely enforced — indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. (A Flag Desecration Amendment has been proposed from time to time and, if ever passed into law, would override Supreme Court rulings on this matter.)

So technically the U.S. says it is wrong, but not an enforced law in the U.S.
However, there are laws that can prevent you from displaying the flag in honor of the country (foreigners became upset lol) which is kind of ironic.

 

[Easter Bunny2]

I completely agree with you. I did a little research on the U.S. Flag Code and found this quote about the legalities of disrespecting the flag:

So technically the U.S. says it is wrong, but not an enforced law in the U.S.
However, there are laws that can prevent you from displaying the flag in honor of the country (foreigners became upset lol) which is kind of ironic.

Actually, the U.S. has several laws, first established after the Civil War, that protect our nation's flag from desecration. These laws make it illegal to "publicly burn, spit, trample, or otherwise showing a lack of respect of it." (it being the flag) These laws were passed and reviewed by the Supreme Court.

As i said earlier, the right to Freedom of Speech is often over interpreted. Some say that the right to carry a firearm and the prohibition of carrying one in private places is contradictory but it is not. The right to carry a firearm gives you the right to where the government is concerned, not where private property is concerned. Freedom of speech is extended to what the government defines it as and the government prohibits flag burning. Thus being, flag burning is not freedom of speech but an illegal act.

 

[saberd]

Actually, the U.S. has several laws, first established after the Civil War, that protect our nation's flag from desecration. These laws make it illegal to "publicly burn, spit, trample, or otherwise showing a lack of respect of it." (it being the flag) These laws were passed and reviewed by the Supreme Court.

As i said earlier, the right to Freedom of Speech is often over interpreted. Some say that the right to carry a firearm and the prohibition of carrying one in private places is contradictory but it is not. The right to carry a firearm gives you the right to where the government is concerned, not where private property is concerned. Freedom of speech is extended to what the government defines it as and the government prohibits flag burning. Thus being, flag burning is not freedom of speech but an illegal act.

It is like talking in class, if you whisper you won't get in trouble, but if you yell you will be punished mildly. It's a law, yes, but as to it being enforced it is RARELY enforced.
Also if you honestly thought the Civil War laws would stay, let me remind you that William Mumford, the guy who removed the Union Flag from New Orleans during the Civil War was given a death sentence and all he did was take the flag down...

 

[Easter Bunny2]

It is like talking in class, if you whisper you won't get in trouble, but if you yell you will be punished mildly. It's a law, yes, but as to it being enforced it is RARELY enforced.
Also if you honestly thought the Civil War laws would stay, let me remind you that William Mumford, the guy who removed the Union Flag from New Orleans during the Civil War was given a death sentence and all he did was take the flag down...

We are talking modern times, the Civil War was a fight for liberty and very, very drastic measures were taken.

It is not a RARELY enforced law, it is a rarely seen crime. In the modern time, very little Americans burn flags publicly. You should not assume it is rarely enforced because you do not see it on the news or on a website.

Finally, Civil War laws did stay. The laws established were AFTER the Civil War, not during. These laws were the foundation of the United States and still (generally) are to this day.

Good night all

 

[saberd]

We are talking modern times, the Civil War was a fight for liberty and very, very drastic measures were taken.

It is not a RARELY enforced law, it is a rarely seen crime. In the modern time, very little Americans burn flags publicly. You should not assume it is rarely enforced because you do not see it on the news or on a website.

Finally, Civil War laws did stay. The laws established were AFTER the Civil War, not during. These laws were the foundation of the United States and still (generally) are to this day.

Good night all

I must get the last word =P
Flag Desecration is a law and when I say it is rarely enforced I say that because when prosecuted, they use the first amendment, it is taken to Supreme Court, and eventually all charges dropped and the flag burner is free to go