Desecration of the US Flag

[alelks]

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]

I agree and it irks me but America will never again be the country that our fathers grew up in.

[MR2]

and we should behead anyone who draws a caricature of it too!


Oh, wait a minute...

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by MR2

and we should behead anyone who draws a caricature of it too!


Oh, wait a minute...

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And remember only a coward would throw it to the ground and walk on it, and after that it no longer represents the honorable men and women that fought and bled for it.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]

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!

[Richard]

Originally Posted by alelks

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?

This is what the SCOTUS said of it in the Johnson v Texas decision.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...svjohnson.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

Originally Posted by mojaveman

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.

[the squid]

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.

[Sdiver]

Originally Posted by WCH

Ah yes, "the good old days"! IMO (old enough to be your dad), they weren't as good as you believe they were.

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?

[PSM]

Originally Posted by WCH

Ah yes, "the good old days"! IMO (old enough to be your dad), they weren't as good as you believe they were.

I disagree. (You could be my older brother. )

Pat

[spherojon]

Originally Posted by miclo18d

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.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by spherojon

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?

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?

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

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Richard

Discriminately punish people for exercising a legally held constitutional right?

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?

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?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

^^^^^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

[Penn]

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.