Quote :

"the soldiers did not fight for the country's freedom so that the free people could burn a symbol of their hard work, dedication, and numerous lost lives"

Its just a symbol. The flag itself is just a piece of cloth. Its what it represents that matters. It doesn't matter if one person burns it or one thousand, what it represents can never be destroyed. By supporting this amendment you are going against what the flag truly represents. What is that so hard for you to understand?!?!?!

6/27/2006 12:25:31 PM

do you agree that its disrespectful to burn a flag?

6/27/2006 12:26:22 PM

^^^ Holy shit, I think that's the first time I've ever agreed with Protostar on anything.

^^ Why don't you talk to a few soldiers. All of the ones I know don't really care. They would much rather not be sent to the desert every other year.

6/27/2006 12:27:19 PM

i know soldiers that do care

so that point is not going to work

6/27/2006 12:29:22 PM

So let's just outlaw everything that is disrespectful. That'll work great.

6/27/2006 12:30:48 PM

Quote :

"do you agree that its disrespectful to burn a flag?"

No, I don't. I don't get worked up over symbols. its just a flag, and thats it. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep knowing that somewhere out there someone is burning an American flag and "OMG" excercising their right to freedom of speech. Excuse me for having more important things to worry about like getting a job and paying off debt.

6/27/2006 12:30:51 PM

yes its disrespectful, and i would never do it

but its facist to disallow it

6/27/2006 12:31:41 PM

its illegal to destroy your drivers license

its that facist?

at least you acknowledge that burning a flag is disrespectful to some

btw i'm not for this amendment

but to act like "its just cloth" seems pretty sheltered to me

6/27/2006 12:33:01 PM

a flag is just cloth

6/27/2006 12:36:36 PM

i was not aware that its illegal to destroy your driver's license, but that's a different comparison because the license is government issued. you cannot destroy money legally either--that's also issued by the government. the comparison would be more consistent if people were burning government issued flags.

6/27/2006 12:36:56 PM

^^Exactly

6/27/2006 12:38:08 PM

why dont people just burn bedsheets? they're just cloth too

hey lets burn the US Constitution

its just a piece of paper

6/27/2006 12:41:18 PM

oh dear

6/27/2006 12:42:18 PM

flags mean a lot to a lot of people

i think the confederate flag should be burned regularly

6/27/2006 12:43:29 PM

Quote :

"why dont people just burn bedsheets? they're just cloth too hey lets burn the US Constitution its just a piece of pape"

Actually it is just a piece of paper, but if you did such a thing you would be destroying a historical document in addition to the fact that it is government property and I'm sure there would be hefty penalties for such an act. Burning the American flag is neither of these.

6/27/2006 12:44:05 PM

you can print copies of the constitution and burn those if you are so inclined

6/27/2006 12:45:32 PM

indeed you can

6/27/2006 12:46:12 PM

It's very simple if you approach the issue from a property rights angle. You have the right to buy or make a flag...and then burn it. It's your flag. You can wave it proudly from your front door or douse it in gasoline (if you can afford it) and set it ablaze. It's your property.

Now you do not have a right to burn, or desecrate somebody else's flag. That would violate their property rights.

Our flag is a symbol of freedom, part of that freedom is the right to own the fruits of your labors. If you get a flag through the fruits of your labors, the flag's own symbolism supports your right to destroy it - if you wish.

6/27/2006 1:06:19 PM

Quote :

"hey lets burn the US Constitution its just a piece of paper"

Mr. President, you have a supporting statement?

Quote :

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper."

Quote :

"why dont people just burn bedsheets? they're just cloth too"

People have sex on bedsheets. I'm sure a few people (maybe even on here) have burned some sheets after that.

6/27/2006 2:03:44 PM

again, i'm not for the amendment

i just think theres something inherently hypocritical about burning a symbol of the freedoms you have just because you have the freedom to do it

i mean we see middle easterners do it on tv because we bomb their countries (and because their media is much worse than ours)...do we take the pussy route and say "waah, waah, gas prices are too high, i blame the us govt, lets burn a flag"

6/27/2006 2:11:19 PM

Quote :

"But the mere act of flag burning itself just doesn't constitute fighting words to me."

Why not? Here is a legal summary of fighting words doctrine:

Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed.

I think that by its very doing, flag burning inflicts an injury, particularly upon someone like the hypothetical person I mentioned before, who has a loved one in Iraq. Certainly I think it is without contradiction that if you go burn a flag, it would tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence. I would beat the shit out of whoever I saw burning a flag, and I don't even have any family in Iraq. I have no doubt that most of those who do would have an even greater feeling on the matter.

It's the same thing as the Westboro Baptist Church people (the "God Hates America" people) - if their conduct should be prohibited, then why not flag burning? It seems to all arise from the same principle, with the same tendency to cause harm by the action itself and the same tendency to incite violence.

Quote :

"I'll support banning flag burning when they support locking up all those people who continue flying worn out and shredded flags over their businesses... or put flag bumper stickers on their cars... or create any kind of flag ties, flag clothing, flag lapel pins..."

The Amendment merely grants states the right to prohibit it. It does not delineate specifically what conduct is prohibited - that is the realm of statute. All the Amendment says is that states have the right to enact such statutes. It does not get into the minutiae and technical details.

Quote :

"on an unrelated side note, does the "the flag is more than a piece of cloth" argument mean I'm going to Hell b/c I accidentally tore a couple pages in my 10+ year old Bible? I mean I just physically desecrated the Word of God... "

Not hell, but a few billion years in Purgatory.

J/k. If something is an accident, it is an accident.

Quote :

"In the Boy Scouts, we burn flags in a retirement ceremony, and apparently this means we wouldnt be able to do that any longer which is messed up"

No it doesn't. Because undoubtedly, when a state goes to craft a statute, it would make such exceptions. Remember, this Amendment does not ban flag burning outright - it gives each state the right to craft a statute to ban it. And in crafting the statute, the state would without doubt take into account all those proper means of disposing of a flag.

Quote :

"so what would happen if a Constitutional amendment was passed that contradicts another? Would the Supreme Court have the authority to strike it down?"

No. Constitutional amendments have been passed that contradict the other. The prohibition repealing amendment for example.

Quote :

"the soldiers did not fight for the country's freedom so that the free people could burn a symbol of their hard work, dedication, and numerous lost lives"

Great quote.

Quote :

"a flag is just cloth"

In that case, if all people wnat to burn is cloth, then so be it. I'll go to the fabrics department at wal-Mart and bring them a big bolt of cloth they can burn to their hearts content.

Of course it is not "just cloth". That's why they're burning it. They would not want to burn the bolt of fabric I buy them at wal-Mart, because that is just cloth.

6/27/2006 3:09:56 PM

I agree

The first amendment was never meant to protect acts that would upset people.

6/27/2006 3:17:16 PM

Reminds me of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
fiasco.

6/27/2006 3:36:56 PM

yea i called this one about 2 weeks ago....

at the bottom of the page.

http://www.brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=412821&page=1#8875312

[Edited on June 27, 2006 at 3:51 PM. Reason : ]

6/27/2006 3:50:55 PM

we should do anything that could be construed as legal regardless of how many people it pisses off and what dumb reasons we have for doing it

the first amendment is there so we can act like morons and justify our moronic ways

6/27/2006 3:51:59 PM

I have seen many people "desecrate" the flag according to this
http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/flagcode.html

yep this is just a bullshit ploy..

6/27/2006 4:06:53 PM

do some people want to burn flags just because "its their constitutional right" to do so?

i usually do things for more practical purposes...i'd burn a flag if i was out in the cold and was freezing to death and had a lighter and a bunch of flags and needed to stay warm

6/27/2006 4:21:50 PM

congratulations.

6/27/2006 4:43:07 PM

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: The Amendment merely grants states the right to prohibit it. It does not delineate specifically what conduct is prohibited - that is the realm of statute. All the Amendment says is that states have the right to enact such statutes. It does not get into the minutiae and technical details."

aaaaannnddd.... you don't see that as a problem?

It basically gives the government carte blanche to do what it wants, and they just use flag burning as the talking point to get it passed. If flag burning is the real issue, just have the amendment say "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the immolatory desecration of the flag of the United States." 

6/27/2006 4:55:35 PM

the amendment failed again.

guess it'll wait until the republicans want to distract america again.

this shit really is shameful. so many bigger problems to spend the congress' time with.

6/27/2006 4:58:06 PM

did the democrats show up for the vote this time?

6/27/2006 5:27:44 PM

didn't go to vote, rep.'s knew they were a couple votes short.

6/27/2006 5:36:30 PM

i dont think there should be an amendment for this

however is it safe to say that people in the US who burn flags have something against the US? or maybe they're just doing it for fun because its legal

if they made it illegal, ie an amendment that says you cant do it (though i dont know why a simple law wouldnt suffice), that would surely stop some of the "casual flag burners" from doing it

then the people who still did it might be legitimate threats to America in some sense?

i'm basically thinking out loud but

6/27/2006 5:41:04 PM

Burning the flag is a form of expression.

A pretty obvious one.

If expressing one's self is a 'threat' to the state as you put it, then you're definitely not on the side of the fence you think you're on.

6/27/2006 5:43:12 PM

can you be any more vague

6/27/2006 5:43:56 PM

I'm pretty sure you can read what I said and understand that expressing one's self should not be illegal.

Call me crazy...

6/27/2006 5:45:35 PM

Quote :

"Robert Justin Goldstein, a scholar on the flag and teacher of political science at Oakland University in Michigan, says he found fewer than 45 reported flag burnings between 1777, when the flag was adopted, and 1989. The greatest number occurred in a five-year period, 1966-1971, and were part of the protests against the Vietnam War."

6/27/2006 5:47:16 PM

are there no other ways to express yourself than burning a flag? is burning a flag the BEST way to express yourself?

i mean, if somethings technically legal, you can technically do it

course maybe some rednecks will express themselves by coming after you with their pickup trucks and shotguns

6/27/2006 5:47:42 PM

If the state is telling me how to express myself then I obviously don't have a freedom of expression.

Redneck's coming after me with an intent to violence does, in fact, violate laws on the books. Thats not a valid example.

Try again.

6/27/2006 5:49:41 PM

what expression of yourself are you putting out there by burning a flag?

seriously i'm asking

6/27/2006 5:50:32 PM

That would depend on what symbolic value the flag holds to the person who burns it.

I would assume most probably do it to express extreme displeasure with the United States government.

6/27/2006 5:53:47 PM

do they think burning a flag is going to change anything?

seems like a dumb thing to do thats not gonna affect anything the US Govt does, except apparently try to ban flag burning

too bad these people who are so intent on keeping their freedom of expression dont know they should instead vote or lobby for what they want

6/27/2006 5:56:02 PM

Thats a pretty blanket statement. Regardless of whether Flag burning does anything, its still a form of expression and hence should still be legal.

6/27/2006 5:58:05 PM

so apparently the amendment may in fact come to a vote in the Senate. I've already sent my email to our two senators (the second time, I did it last year when the same measure was up for a vote).

6/27/2006 6:07:57 PM

Quote :

"its still a form of expression and hence should still be legal"

you know you could consider anything a form of expression, even illegal things

Should the US Consitution legally protect my self expression if I express myself by spraypainting my name on the side of a government building?

6/27/2006 6:39:09 PM

I do not support a flag burning amendment. I think it violates the very principles the flag symbolizes. I also wonder when the last time any one of you saw anyone burn a flag? This just does not seem to be the problem some people are making it out to be.

On a side note I read an article that made a good point. If I can find it I will link to it, but it mentioned that even if it were to become illegal to burn a flag anyone could get around the letter of the law because the flag is such a specific thing. If you burned something that had only 49 stars or 11 stripes it would not be an American flag. Should we outlaw the burning of things with red stripes?

Also, someone needs to build a car that runs on American flags and see if that changes anyone's mind. Republicans would burn flags all day long if it would make their suburbans go.

6/27/2006 6:45:55 PM

i actually saw some girl burn one at a party off avent ferry about 6 years ago

i didnt care...she was drunk...it just seemed pretty pointless

6/27/2006 6:48:03 PM

Quote :

"Should the US Consitution legally protect my self expression if I express myself by spraypainting my name on the side of a government building?"

yes.

but only if you're incapable of distinguishing the difference between destroying your own property versus destroying government property.

6/27/2006 8:12:51 PM

let's just reiterate here -- this isn't an anti flag-burning amendment at all. it's a Big Guv'ment effort to criminalize anything anyone is offended enough to consider "desecration"

some of you need to go back and read Texas v Johnson (1989) too...

Quote :

"Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397 (1989) Docket Number: 88-155 Abstract Argued: March 21, 1989 Decided: June 21, 1989 Subjects: First Amendment: Free Speech Facts of the Case In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall where the Republican National Convention was being held, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. Question Presented Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? Conclusion In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." "

I don't know about the "conservatives" on here, but I'm w/ Scalia on this one... 

6/27/2006 8:44:25 PM

C'mon, guys

tell me none of you think this is going to happen. Please. Just to restore my faith in your collective competence.

6/27/2006 8:46:37 PM