I absolutely love the opinions of our great commenters. Jennifer, Airforcewife, Shawmut, Devil Dog, V the K, etc….. I love the discussions we wind up having over these issues and honestly, I serve as a class-A ranter on issues that I find worthy of either ranting about or laughing at. So I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with you and to enjoy the luxury of your feedback. The feedback that often times takes the issues to a deeper level of importance.
I have another friend – a good-hearted “libertarian” who absolutely hates the war in Iraq, dislikes the Bush administration, and even though he describes himself as a “libertarian” he seems to always err on the side of liberalism in our many – many debates and discussions.
Recently, he sent me the above video to provoke a discussion about flag-burning and its constitutionality. He knows I am against it and he claims to be “personally” against it as well but always manages to argue in its favor.
Most liberals use the old “freedom of speech” canard in defending issues like this. So here is my thoughts on flag-burning and using public podiums such as the White House (as enacted in the scene above) to carry it out.
First, I agree that theoretically it is an act of free speech or expression to burn a flag. But I also agree that it is theoretically an act of free speech and expression to insult someone in public, fondle yourself in public, etc. Theory and actual law never seem to mesh well together and whenever laws are created to protect the citizens of this country from overly-hostile “constitutional” behavior, it creates an opportunity to find camaraderie and rapport among Americans. (Thus also explaining the utter failure of libertarianism.)
In the example I used with him, I asked him to imagine walking up to an elderly woman on the street, screaming in her face and telling her you detest her because she smells of nursing home and Ben-Gay. She starts to shake and cry because she is frightened and simultaneously wonders how someone can be that cruel. The offender in my opinion used his theoretical right to free speech in this matter. But because the Constitution also grants us the right to peace and civility (all people) we must have a system of laws to moderate between what is “just free” and what is “free and civil.” The laws that stem from the Constitution are made to protect the people. In the case of the old lady, she is the victim and has the right to peace and civility, therefore the offender could be subjected to a “disturbance of peace” arrest. He exercised his right to free speech under the Constitution but infringed on someone else’s Constitutional right to be protected by the law equally.
Liberals and libertarians blather on about rights as if they are the only thing that matter. It’s my freedom of speech and no matter who I hurt or who I harm in the process, the ultimate goal is to fully illustrate that right!
“Rights” in my opinion is also subjected to another infamous “r” word – one that liberals hate – “Responsibility.”
As Dr. Laura Schlessinger once said: “I need the acknowledgment from you that I have rights, but you need the acknowledgment from me that I have responsibilities – that’s the cycle.” We do have a responsibility to exercise a contribution to maintaining a civil level of expression in this country. You can say what you want, do what you want, but if you are going to be vulgar or offensive to where others’ peace of mind is at risk, you are subject to a fine or penalty.
Moreover; if someone wants to burn a flag in their own private home, that is fine. If someone wants to have a campfire in their private yard and throw in the U.S. flag, the Bible, and the Constitution that would be okay as well.
But when we use public podiums to do things like expose our genitals, verbally insult or hurt one person or group of people, or disgrace this country by burning the symbolism of what our men fought and died for generations ago to make some shallow point about something they disagree with, conformity to popular opinion on what is and what isn’t offensive is necessary. If not, you go to jail.
Taxpayers are not funding a person’s right to offensive-freedom. Keep it out of the White House and off of public streets. It’s the law and the majority of this country finds it offensive.
I welcome all comments on the topic.
Thank you.
steveflesher
Philip
Mel Maguire
Mark Ciavola
Comments
I think you make very good points, but other than responsible fire hazard legislation that applies to all burning debris in the street, I don’t think that flag burning should be legislated.
I started my life out and spent the first 20 some odd years as an avowed leftie. Never in my career as a leftie did I encounter the amount of vitriol from conservatives that I have encountered from liberals angry I have “left the reservation”. And I’m not really a REAL conservative! If they aren’t in your face desecrating the flag they are allowed to desecrate because of what it represents in the first place, they will find something else to assault us about.
I think the best possible response to someone desecrating the flag in any way is to stand at attention, hand over heart, and to say the pledge or sing the national anthem. The reaction to this act alone would speak volumes.
In college, I would have considered myself a libertarian, but I eventually discovered that many libertarians, and most all “loud and proud” libertarians go so far out to the fringe that they abandon common sense.
As for flag-burning and free speech, I don’t think we lose anything in terms of our capability for public debate if we disallow flag burning. There are nearly limitless venues for getting the same message across. A ban on flag burning no more censors free speech than a ban on graffiti does.
I also personally don’t have any problem with allowing states and communities to define and censor pr0nograffy, since such censorship does not diminish the type of political debate the 1st Amendment was intended to protect.
As a former Marine, it really ticks me off that people hide behind the First Amendment to just say “I have the freedom to burn the flag”.
That is all well and good and I appreciate that right.
It disturbs me though that people have to resort to those tactics instead of using the very brain the Lord gave you to express your ideas in a persuasive manner.
I’ve seen the American flag flying on other countries’ soil and have felt proud to know that an Embassy is a sanctuary for me as an American should I run into trouble in a foreign land. I once saw hundreds of people lined up outside of the American Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand waiting to just get a visa to come to our country, while I walked right through the gate – I was proud then and still am to this day. By the way, when you walk through that gate, the first thing you see is the American flag!
One other thing, as a Reservist in the military, I would have run the stage once Gillette pulled the lighter out of his pocket.
Here was my oath, taken again in October:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
What Gillette was about to do is different than the debate about the flag.
In this case, I would have kicked his ass back to Vegas!
That, my friends, is my sworn allegiance.
I believe that when a person burns an American flag they are further distancing themselves from those common sense Americans.
Americans see the flag burning as a mental cry for help than a legitimate complaint against government or cultural issues.
As a veteran I’ve find my emotions nearly played out on the issue of flag reverence, which I’ve always taken to mean a reverence to those that served it. That feeling remains as rich as ever. The idea that others don’t share my reverence, I must just abide.
The flaunting and spiteful disrespect has neither now, nor had previously, anything to do with their rights. The value of rights denied has not even come tangent to most of their experiences.
I guess it’s the failure of our success as a country that this experience has been denied them.
Today, I just make notice and think in frustration “Thus defines them.” They act this out only to prove they can – locked in adolescence.
I had a response on my website when it came up before. http://shawmut.blogspot.com/2007/09/on-flag.html
But the rights are due us who share this reverence I cited. My neighbors don’t like it that my flag flies from my third story apartment. Too garrish for “Attitude Alley”.
One even asked me if I wasn’t concerned about alienating people. I asked her who all she had in mind. She replied with “Well, you know, people in general…” So I asked her if it offended her and how. She thought a moment then said that yes, it seemed I was asserting my opinion over other peoples rights…the palaver goes on…. “What rights do other have that I don’t?” I asked. (Now remember, she started all this.)
She couldn’t bring herself to say that I had the same rights as any other neighbor. In her mind, one of a collective of uniformed thinkers (contradiction in terms), I should not abuse my privileges. Should I have thanked her, and hers’, for the privileges that they had a right to convey upon me.
Nope.
She ended up hearing me say how unfortunate it must be for her to continually abide as an imbecile, trying to play catch- up with people she thought approved of her.
SHAWMUT, great analysis. You said it perfectly and I think the experiences truly define the “rich” factor you spoke about in your analysis.
Truly, in the 10-15 years of debate on this subject, you expressed it eloquently and succinctly.
Thanks, again.