View Full Version : Desecration of the US Flag
We need to push to bring this law back:
5-51-207. Contempt for or desecration of the United States flag.
(a) (1) Any person who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisoned for not more than one (1) year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, "flag of the United States" means any flag of the United States, or any part of a flag of the United States, made of any substance, or any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
mojaveman
05-17-2015, 19:06
I agree and it irks me but America will never again be the country that our fathers grew up in.
and we should behead anyone who draws a caricature of it too!
Oh, wait a minute... :munchin
Team Sergeant
05-17-2015, 19:56
and we should behead anyone who draws a caricature of it too!
Oh, wait a minute... :munchin
Bingo......
It's free speech.....leave it alone.
And remember only a coward would throw it to the ground and walk on it, and after that it no longer represents the honorable men and women that fought and bled for it. (That's how I see it anyway)
miclo18d
05-18-2015, 04:40
Take a picture of the people doing it! Remember she who will not be named posed for some great pics and will never be able to esplain that one away. Nor will these folks.
Free speech works both ways.
Free speech for us to identify the people doing it and put them in the hall of shame!
We need to push to bring this law back:
5-51-207. Contempt for or desecration of the United States flag.
(a) (1) Any person who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisoned for not more than one (1) year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, "flag of the United States" means any flag of the United States, or any part of a flag of the United States, made of any substance, or any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
If that were the law, how would you respond to all the soldiers or others who have signed US flags as souvenirs of their service and such, and either sent them to family, friends, vet group sponsors, schools, museums, etc? :confused:
This is what the SCOTUS said of it in the Johnson v Texas decision.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/texasvjohnson.html
You can either listen to or read the transcript of the oral argument here - it is very interesting to review and consider.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155
I personally know the Dallas attorney who argued the case before the SCOTUS - Kathy Drew. Her son graduated from my school, and she came in annually to give a presentation to our seniors during their Government class. Her views on the issue were changed after her appearance before the SCOTUS.
FWIW - I side with the majority decision of the SCOTUS on this one, too.
Richard
I agree and it irks me but America will never again be the country that our fathers grew up in.
Ah yes, "the good old days"! IMO (old enough to be your dad), they weren't as good as you believe they were. :munchin
the squid
05-18-2015, 08:16
It would take a constitutional ammendment, as Texas v. Johnson has already granted it protected speech status.
That said, I disagree with banning it.
I think that one of the consequences of living in a free society is that from time to time, people will do things that offend the sensibilities of the majority of people. Fred Phelps comes to mind. So does Larry Flynt's satire of Jerry Falwell. That these actions are offensive, in my opinion, is not sufficient enough reason to ban them from the public discourse.
Vigilante justice never hurt anyone, though.
Ah yes, "the good old days"! IMO (old enough to be your dad), they weren't as good as you believe they were. :munchin
Gee Dad, why not?
There was a chicken in every pot, a car in every driveway and a communist under every bed. I mean, what's not to like? :D
:munchin
Ah yes, "the good old days"! IMO (old enough to be your dad), they weren't as good as you believe they were. :munchin
I disagree. (You could be my older brother. ;))
Pat
spherojon
05-18-2015, 16:02
Take a picture of the people doing it! Remember she who will not be named posed for some great pics and will never be able to esplain that one away. Nor will these folks.
Free speech works both ways.
Free speech for us to identify the people doing it and put them in the hall of shame!
Start revoking food stamps and welfare from all who participate. Sit back and watch how quickly they stop.
Start revoking food stamps and welfare from all who participate. Sit back and watch how quickly they stop.
Discriminately punish people for exercising a legally held constitutional right? :confused:
And what would be done to the many exercising such a 'right' who aren't entered into some federal/state/local governmment entitlement program? :confused:
I'm retired; does that mean you think I should lose my government retirement and social security benefits if I choose to exercise such a 'right' to exhibit my extreme displeasure over something I may view as an egregious governmental policy or action? :confused:
IMO burning or 'mutilating' a recognized symbol like the US flag in protest as a sort of 'Uncle Sam' effigy for the failure of our government to achieve the ideals the flag supposedly represents is far preferable to the mutilating or burning of people who may not agree with either their government's behavior or that of its leaders.
MOO.
Richard
Discriminately punish people for exercising a legally held constitutional right? :confused:
And what would be done to the many exercising such a 'right' who aren't entered into some federal/state/local governmment entitlement program? :confused:
I'm retired; does that mean you think I should lose my government retirement and social security benefits if I choose to exercise such a 'right' to exhibit my extreme displeasure over something I may view as an egregious governmental policy or action? :confused:
IMO burning or 'mutilating' a recognized symbol like the US flag in protest as a sort of 'Uncle Sam' effigy for the failure of our government to achieve the ideals the flag supposedly represents is far preferable to the mutilating or burning of people who may not agree with either their government's behavior or that of its leaders.
MOO.
Richard
^^^^^How are food stamps and welfare a legally held constitutional right?
^^^^^How are food stamps and welfare a legally held constitutional right?
If you read my statements, you will see that I neither implied nor said they were any such thing - I said they were a "federal/state/local governmment entitlement program".
The constitutional 'right' I was referencing was the topic of this thread - the First Amendment of The Bill of Rights.
Richard
This is not the first time we have attended this flag rodeo here.
The court ruling is the very essence of what we have all sworn to protect and defend with our lives.
(imo) What the ruling supports, is the fundamental right of free unrestricted speech, up to and including the destruction of our most cherished symbols. Justice Blackburn questions, as have others, how are we to distinguished what is more important between one representative object and another. Who establishes the value, and who has that right to impose the value on others, without first, negating the very essence of our rights protected by the 1st amendment.
In another thread someone remarked that the idea of being American was a mindset, and that idea is what made us unique. Being an American was a state of beliefs, enshrined in our Constitution as unalienable rights.
Being an American involves a level of consideration for cultural and religious differences that supersedes restriction. Being an American Soldier means swearing an oath of allegiance that supersedes our own prejudices in protecting those differences, even if those who most benefit from that oath, would never swear allegiance to it.
Some time ago, when the issue of burning the flag was causing severe emotional distress for many of us, I none the less, asked my state Senator, a WWII combat vet to vote against establishing the act as criminal for the same reason.
When we watch foreign protesters burn effigies and our National symbol, it disturbs us, not because we fear the loss of those emblems, but because it represents a threat to its representation, our ideals: Words, those which we willing defend and are prepared to die for, are more important that symbolic representations.
If you read my statements, you will see that I neither implied nor said they were any such thing - I said they were a "federal/state/local governmment entitlement program".
The constitutional 'right' I was referencing was the topic of this thread - the First Amendment of The Bill of Rights.
Richard
Your post #12 was quoting spherojon: "Start revoking food stamps and welfare from all who participate. Sit back and watch how quickly they stop."
Your post #12 was quoting spherojon: "Start revoking food stamps and welfare from all who participate. Sit back and watch how quickly they stop."
Yes - as his post suggested taking an 'entitlement' (welfare, food stamps) as punishment for those choosing to participate in excersing a constitutional 'right' (burning a US flag as a legitimate form of free speech IAW the Firt Amendment) and I was challenging that idea of punishing somebody for exercising such a 'right'.
You are misreading my post.
Richard
spherojon
05-19-2015, 15:48
Discriminately punish people for exercising a legally held constitutional right?
The First Amendment was established to promote the free exchange of ideas and provide a remedy to citizens to openly criticize their government. James Madison explained in 1799 “Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt, that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it originally stood; and that the [first] amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.” I am not arguing that they do not have a right to protest. What I am arguing, is that they are destroying property and desecrating an American Symbol. Might as well be killing bald eagles and pissing on the Seal of the United States. Bald Eagles are of course protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act of 1940 (Amended in 1962). The Seal of the United States, if I am not mistaken is protected by the U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 33, § 713. Also, in my humble opinion, flag desecrations (specifically this kind with people doing the Black Panther “Black Power” fist) is a form of “fighting words,” specifically intended to inflame another and that will likely incited physical retaliation or incite violence or encourage the audience to commit illegal acts. Hell, I would even argue that it is obscene. Some might argue Texas v. Johnson and that it is “symbolic speech.” I still believe the Supreme Court’s 5-4 vote on that issue is controversial. I don’t believe flag desecration to be protected under the 1st Amendment. That is my opinion. I think there should be consequences for it.
And what would be done to the many exercising such a 'right' who aren't entered into some federal/state/local governmment entitlement program?
I'm retired; does that mean you think I should lose my government retirement and social security benefits if I choose to exercise such a 'right' to exhibit my extreme displeasure over something I may view as an egregious governmental policy or action.
Where do you draw the line in the sand for showing your “extreme displeasure?” What extreme do we draw a line? I understand what you are getting at. Benjamin Franklin said it the best:
“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”
IMO burning or 'mutilating' a recognized symbol like the US flag in protest as a sort of 'Uncle Sam' effigy for the failure of our government to achieve the ideals the flag supposedly represents is far preferable to the mutilating or burning of people who may not agree with either their government's behavior or that of its leaders.
I say pick something else besides an American Flag.
Yes - as his post suggested taking an 'entitlement' (welfare, food stamps) as punishment for those choosing to participate in excersing a constitutional 'right' (burning a US flag as a legitimate form of free speech IAW the Firt Amendment) and I was challenging that idea of punishing somebody for exercising such a 'right'.
Government programs like welfare and food stamps are a privilege, not a right.
Entire post. How would you enforce your proposed law in which *assumed* recipients of public assistance would lose their privileges for exercising their free speech?
spherojon
05-19-2015, 16:21
How would you enforce your proposed law in which *assumed* recipients of public assistance would lose their privileges for exercising their free speech?
Granted my first post on this topic I didn't put the pink font, but I would go with Alelks original post.
5-51-207. Contempt for or desecration of the United States flag.
(a) (1) Any person who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisoned for not more than one (1) year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, "flag of the United States" means any flag of the United States, or any part of a flag of the United States, made of any substance, or any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
Granted my first post on this topic I didn't put the pink font, but I would go with Alelks original post.You specially focused on a particular cohort in your second post as well as your first. You implied and then doubled down on your assumption that this cohort is comprised of welfare and food stamp recipients because?
spherojon
05-19-2015, 17:00
You specially focused on a particular cohort in your second post as well as your first. You implied and then doubled down on your assumption that this cohort is comprised of welfare and food stamp recipients because?
Which specific line are you referring to in my second post that I "doubled down" on? I think you are referring to "there should be consequences..."
My first comment was along the sarcastic lines of "throw workbooks and job applications at the rioters and watch them flee." Don't worry, my sarcasm is protected by the fist amendment.
Peregrino
05-19-2015, 17:03
Which specific line are you referring to in my second post that I "doubled down" on? I think you are referring to "there should be consequences..."
My first comment was along the sarcastic lines of "throw workbooks and job applications at the rioters and watch them flee." Don't worry, my sarcasm is protected by the fist amendment.
Nice "Fraudian" slip.