Flag Burning OK: According to News and Advance
In an opinion article published inThe News and Daily Advance , they have taken a strong stand in favor of the right to burn the American Flag. There contention is that, it is part of American's right on free expression.
Personally, I find this as distasteful as the burning of Islamic books, and cross burning, which are being classified as hate crimes. Does the News and Daily Advance have the same opinion on these?
What could be a worse hate crime than showing a public distain for America by burning the flag. This is the symbol of our country. If you burn the flag, you are expressing to me, the troops in Iraq, the many that have died before for our country, and just common everyday American people the ultimate "hate crime" against all of us.
This is not free speech, The News and Advance is defending, although that is there contention, this is an opinion that the flag means nothing.
As far as I am concerned, The News and Advance should remove their flag pole. And everytime I see an image of the American flag on their Newspaper if you can call it that, I will be reminded of their opinion of flag burning.
(Patriotism and supporting our troops)
posted by B O B @ 6:53 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
The point of the 1st Amendment is to protect unpopular forms of speech and expression,which flag burning certainly falls under.Also,it's a matter of property rights.If I go to Wal Mart and spend my money on a flag then that flag is my property to do with as I see fit.
Thank you for your comment. Now, I wonder if you could answer this question. If a large wooden cross was your property and you decided to burn it, do you realize you would be committing a crime in the state of Virginia? This is considered a "hate crime" in Virginia, not an expression of free speech. It should be a "hate crime" as far as I am concerned. Since you are taking the stand that burning the symbol of our country is a valid form of expression, what other hate crimes are you in favor of? Please enlighten us.
It is a hate crime to burn a cross because it is an attempt to intimidate a person because of their race.That being said it shouldn't be a hate crime to burn a cross on your own property unless you are doing it in view of a black person in an effort to frighten or intimidate them.Burning a flag doesn't frighten or intimidate anyone,it just pisses them off.I personally would never burn or salute a flag.It's obnoxious and childish to burn one,but it shouldn't be illegal.
In response to your comment, about cross burning as compared to flag burning.
1.What you have been defending is the public burning of the flag, so I will hold that comparison on an equal basis with cross burning.
2. You contend that the difference between flag burning and cross burning is a degree of adversiveness of the act. You make the personal jugdement that one is worse than the other, which I do not.
3. In your original permise: "The point of the 1st Amendment is to protect unpopular forms of speech and expression."Your key error is the word "form." The First Amendment is very clear on what types protection it affords.
Here is the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is not a valid connection between flag burning and speech. Nor is there an assumption that flag burning is a "form" of speech.
You may think thats what the First Amendment infers, but you are in error.
Whether or not burning a flag is a protected exercise of free speech is debatable. If it's not then why have a constitutional amendment?Why doesn't congress just go ahead and ban it?And,what about the right of a person to do as the please with their own property?If I spend my money on a flag why is it the government's business what I do with it?Also,the difference between flag burning and cross burning isn't the "degree of adverseness ",but the type of adverseness.One is an attempt to intimidate and harass,the other is just offensive to some people.I believe free expression,wheather it's technically protected by the 1st amendment or not,outranks anyone's "right" to not be offended.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Again, thank you for your comment. Lets look first at your contention that:
"And,what about the right of a person to do as the please with their own property?If I spend my money on a flag why is it the government's business what I do with it?"
If you decided to build a house of prostitution on your property. You would be breaking the law, along with many other activities that you may decide to do on your own property. Or for that matter if you purchase a gun does not give you the right to shoot someone. So what you are speaking of as a "right" here is only a preception that you have the right to do as you please. Your argument fails on that account.
Now to your other point, "One is an attempt to intimidate and harass,the other is just offensive to some people.I believe free expression..."
You make a serious misjudgement here. You belittle the act of flag burning as "just offensive to some people" I assure you that it is not "just offensive." Besides repugnant, it is an insult and a defiance to those who have sacraficed there lives, or their limbs, so you can live in this country. When someone burns the Flag, It goes beyond being offensive it is comparable to striking a veteran in the face. You have the right to disagree, but the moment you burn a flag in public I hope that you will experience the punitive effect of the law when it is passed.
And my opinion each and every veteran that has made a sacrifice for his country "outranks" your appeal for flag burning.
I'm sure most veterans find flag burning as repugnant and an insult,but I just don't see it even being in the same category as building a house of prostitution or shooting someone.We're obviously not going to change each others opinions and answering some of the other points you've made would take this disagreement to a level I don't want to go to,so I'll just say I respect you're views even though I don't agree with them,and I thank you for respectfully allowing my to express my views on your site.
Sorry,I forgot to add my name to the last post.
You are welcome wobbly, and regardless of which side of the issues we take. I respect your right to voice yours. You are welcome to post your views and although you may think some of my examples were harsh. I do respect your right to present your point of view. Ultimately, it is not my opinion or yours that is important. It is how others use what was provided here to make their own judgements. Thank you again.
It is amazing what you find on Blogger when you search for information about patriotisism and flags. This is definitely an area where people have strong opinions. There should be a picture of the Blogger icon in the dictionary next to "free speach".
--Enjoyed your post....united states flag history
Post a Comment
<< Home