# Flag Burning within that Country



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

I'm an American. I'm proud of where I'm from and if called on I would go and fight for this country. I also believe very much that each of us has rights and freedoms that a government should not be allowed to take away, hence the reason I have not seriously considered living in any other country. That said, should someone be able to burn a flag? Especially, should they be able to burn the flag of the country they are currently in? We have members from other countries on this board, which I believe adds the variety of opinions and flavor of this board. Personally, I don't agree with someone being able to burn the flag. I wouldn't expect Canadians to allow someone to burn a Canadian flag, as I wouldn't expect Italians to allow somoene to burn an Italian flag (especially if the burner was in one of those respective countries).

I understand the flag is an inanament object, that particular flag being burned has no significant value. I understand that one flag doesn't alter this country, it's not like it is the only flag. That is my mind speaking. My heart and my gut tells me burning a flag is just wrong. Too many people have given their lives for what that flag represents. That flag is a symbol and like a Cross or a Star of David, it has intrinsic meaning to many people. So, though I am the first to say less goverment involvement in my life, this I believe should not be covered under the American 1st Amendment.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Seems to me that the very act of burning the flag, perhaps curiously, is a powerful embodiment of the actual freedoms it represents. 

I've never had the urge myself, but I don't get too worked up about this topic, for the reason above. I think there are more pressing social issues.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

As I said, more pressing social issues.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> I'm an American. I'm proud of where I'm from and if called on I would go and fight for this country. I also believe very much that each of us has rights and freedoms that a government should not be allowed to take away, hence the reason I have not seriously considered living in any other country. That said, should someone be able to burn a flag? Especially, should they be able to burn the flag of the country they are currently in? We have members from other countries on this board, which I believe adds the variety of opinions and flavor of this board. Personally, I don't agree with someone being able to burn the flag. I wouldn't expect Canadians to allow someone to burn a Canadian flag, as I wouldn't expect Italians to allow somoene to burn an Italian flag (especially if the burner was in one of those respective countries).
> 
> I understand the flag is an inanament object, that particular flag being burned has no significant value. I understand that one flag doesn't alter this country, it's not like it is the only flag. That is my mind speaking. My heart and my gut tells me burning a flag is just wrong. Too many people have given their lives for what that flag represents. That flag is a symbol and like a Cross or a Star of David, it has intrinsic meaning to many people. So, though I am the first to say less goverment involvement in my life, this I believe should not be covered under the American 1st Amendment.


I used to feel that the flag needed to be protected from those who would burn it. After speaking with my great uncle, a retired lieutenant colonel who served in WWII and Korea, I changed my opinion. He told me there is no reason to ban flag burning, as that would only show that the U.S. is weak and afraid of those who would speak against our country. He went on to say that only those countries run by dictators oppress the freedom of their people to speak against their government. Just something to think about.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

My opinion is that I, too, believe burning the American flag is a despicable act. That could well be partially due to my military training and service. I do not wish to see a legal ban on burning the flag. However, I have to admit that I don't think I would be able to restrain myself from intervening in the in a very vigorous fashion should I pass by someone (or several) burning that flag.

I know that is contradictory, but I'm pretty sure there would be some issues there.


----------



## tweedchap (Sep 13, 2005)

I'm not American, but British, but I think that people should be *allowed* to burn flags. I'm by no means condoning this, but I think that it would be awful were any act of self-expression (that does not involve teh coercion of third parties) to be legally banned--even those (like this) I find despicable. Having said that, I also support relayer in being able to voice his protest whenever he sees such an act occuring, as I think that individuals responding are on a different level than governments responding to such things. 

Moreover, am I right in thinking that a US flag (such as a retured military flag) can only rightly be destroyed by burning? If so, then it seems to me that the issue isn't flag burning as such, but flag-burning with a particular *intent*. And if so, then banning it would seem to be getting dangerously close to policing people's thoughts and intention--which I am *utterly* opposed to.

Respectfully, jstaylor


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

I think flag-burning should be a felony offense with a penalty of deportation..

Of course this is impractical, but really, if your burning your own countries flag what the hell are you still doing there???

MrR


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

It sickens me but I'm not so sure about making it illegal to burn it...

...the picture above of the guy setting himself on fire makes me laugh. Yes, I realize that probably indicates a somewhat advanced stage of dementia on my part but yup, just checked again and thought "Serves you right!".

Taking the slippery slope argument in the other direction, would lobbing a water balloon filled with say.... Ether? at a guy who is burning the flag be considered self expression?

OK, must put down mouse and back slowly away from keyboard now.


----------



## tew (Oct 30, 2005)

America, weakened and enfeebled after two winning two World Wars and a Cold War, with the world's strongest pitifully frail military, and an enduring and inspiring system of government which teeters on the brink of chaos, can hardly afford to have long haired weirdos burning the flag in the streets. The United States just isn't tough enough to take that kind of punishment these days.

Sure, we can basically invent the modern world and save all of humanity from Soviet domination, but HELP ME MOMMY that dirty man with a beard is burning the flag! Oh no! It's a good thing there aren't other important things for America to worry about.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> I'm an American. I'm proud of where I'm from and if called on I would go and fight for this country. I also believe very much that each of us has rights and freedoms that a government should not be allowed to take away, hence the reason I have not seriously considered living in any other country. That said, should someone be able to burn a flag? Especially, should they be able to burn the flag of the country they are currently in? We have members from other countries on this board, which I believe adds the variety of opinions and flavor of this board. Personally, I don't agree with someone being able to burn the flag. I wouldn't expect Canadians to allow someone to burn a Canadian flag, as I wouldn't expect Italians to allow somoene to burn an Italian flag (especially if the burner was in one of those respective countries).
> 
> I understand the flag is an inanament object, that particular flag being burned has no significant value. I understand that one flag doesn't alter this country, it's not like it is the only flag. That is my mind speaking. My heart and my gut tells me burning a flag is just wrong. Too many people have given their lives for what that flag represents. That flag is a symbol and like a Cross or a Star of David, it has intrinsic meaning to many people. So, though I am the first to say less goverment involvement in my life, this I believe should not be covered under the American 1st Amendment.


Trenditional has very eloquently stated my thoughts on this issue. I suspect as one "lives their democratic values" vs "talks about their democratic values," the symbols and representations of that democracy become somewhat more precious to them. One of the most difficult and painful things I have ever done, and perhaps shall ever do, has been watching another burn my Country's flag. It just dosen't seem right!


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Flag Burning is repulsive to me, but it should not be illegal. Basically, we should have that freedom of expression.

However, I think most flag burners usually actually hurt the cause they are trying to publicize. I think most people think flag burning is repulsive. 

I am not as repulsed, but irritated by demagogues who play for votes of people who don't think through this issue thoroughly by calling for making this act illegal.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The Marine Color Guard posts the flag, symbol of all we hold dear with a physical precision that would quicken the heart of a master watchmaker. Old men doff hats and place them over their hearts while grandson's, one hand safe in grandpa's hand mimic him with the other and try to stand as straight. The statesman, fresh and evenly tanned from a trade junket to some island looking subtly out of place among the antiqued leathering of his working class constituancy stands in his rolled up sleeves and Brook's Bros Tie ( the Hermes banished with great political bravery and decisive decision making) and begins THE ORATION.The people listen, or pretend to as various american inventions made overseas command an ever increasing loyalty among attention deficit disorder children, various professionals working 25/7 and the other classes of people weary of a world they neverlooked at. The speech ends, the high school band, wilting like endangered native wildflowers in the unusually hot weather Mr Jeffries tried to discuss in science class which resulted in a reprimand, breaks into the song written by a mostly forgoten social commentator sharing the morning children's show host's name. The STATESMAN moves forward with local indignitairies with the gold painted shears ( made in Red China) and cuts the yellow ribbon ( left over after the dying downtown trees improperly limbed by immigrant labour became an eyesore with their faded bowties.) Meanwhile, up on the ridge a small band of federally unrecognised first americans look down like Geronimo on the cavalry, silent, unseen,unwanted. They watch as a 10,000 year old sacred religous site disappears under flooding waters to nourish golf courses in a far away dream state, the once native trees, animals and millions of tonnes of 'development' waste flush downriver to pollute a small hamlet that will experience a unexplained cluster of cancer cases a decade later. The marines retire the colors, one breaking discipline with a quick glance at the flute player when a dust devil catches her allready short skirt. The old man looks on approvingly, knowing that with such men protecting the symbol of our nation all is well.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Interesting Item*

It is apparently illegal to burn the Mexican flag in the US. This was all over my local news for a week.



> Warden faces the criminal-damage charge for harm done to the concrete shuffleboard court where Warden's group was burning the Mexican flag.... Warden said the charges are a direct result of political pressure from the Mexican Consulate. "If they saw something unlawful, why didn't they commit an arrest then?" Warden said.


I have yet to ever see a similar charge for the burning of the US flag. Also, what is doubly interesting to note, is that the assault of the flag burner is barely mentioned (the video ran locally, it was pretty hairy, not just "two girls throwing water," for instance, they failed to mention the water was at the time encased in bottles! and it appeared there were more than just "two girls" doing it) and that fact that people assaulted LEOs is hardly worth mentioning it would seem.

Oh, found this other link I had been looking for:



> A Mexican official on Monday struck out at a U.S. anti-illegal-immigrant group for burning the Mexican flag outside a consulate in Tucson. "We consider any provocation or vandalism of national symbols to be unacceptable," Foreign Relations Undersecretary Lourdes Aranda said in a news conference.


It does seem what's good for the goose, is *not* good for the gander. Go figure.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Well we definitely want to emulate /Mexico/...



Wayfarer said:


> It is apparently illegal to burn the Mexican flag in the US. This was all over my local news for a week.
> 
> I have yet to ever see a similar charge for the burning of the US flag. Also, what is doubly interesting to note, is that the assault of the flag burner is barely mentioned (the video ran locally, it was pretty hairy, not just "two girls throwing water," for instance, they failed to mention the water was at the time encased in bottles! and it appeared there were more than just "two girls" doing it) and that fact that people assaulted LEOs is hardly worth mentioning it would seem.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Well we definitely want to emulate /Mexico/...


Bertie, you're blurring the issue. While we all know it is currently legal to burn the US flag in the US, one can apparently face charges for burning the Mexican flag in the US....or are you saying Tucson is not part of the US anymore? A real argument could be made for that.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

But it's not the U.S. saying it's illegal to burn the Mexican flag, right? It's Mexico making that claim. That's what I gathered from the news report you posted.

Now that I'm reading it again, it appears that the arrest was made not because of the flag burning per se, but because of "reckless burning," among other things. That's a different situation than saying they arrested him /because/ he burned the Mexican flag as a political statement.



Wayfarer said:


> Bertie, you're blurring the issue. While we all know it is currently legal to burn the US flag in the US, one can apparently face charges for burning the Mexican flag in the US....or are you saying Tucson is not part of the US anymore? A real argument could be made for that.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

MrRogers said:


> I think flag-burning should be a felony offense with a penalty of deportation..
> 
> Of course this is impractical, but really,* if your burning your own countries flag what the hell are you still doing there???*
> 
> MrR


This is my sentiment. I guess my desire is to not prevent people from burning the flag, but make them leave if they dislike the country and what the flag stands for so much. That's like standing in line to pay $80.00 a seat at a sporting event saying, "I hate this damn team."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> But it's not the U.S. saying it's illegal to burn the Mexican flag, right? It's Mexico making that claim. That's what I gathered from the news report you posted.
> 
> Now that I'm reading it again, it appears that the arrest was made not because of the flag burning per se, but because of "reckless burning," among other things. That's a different situation than saying they arrested him /because/ he burned the Mexican flag as a political statement.


Mexico is saying it is "unacceptable" but it occurred in the US and yes, the charge was "reckless burning". The charge was laid after the fact, after pressure was put on local Tucson officials by Mexican federal officials. My original question stands, when was the last time a US flag burner, in the US, was charged in a similar fashion? The point I am trying to make, and apparently not so well...., is it would seem there is a double standard *in the US* concerning the treatment of flag burners, depending on what country's flag is being burned. It is no wonder everyone that hates the US feels free to burn the US flag when that act is protected in the US, but burning a Mexican flag brings manufactured charges against one. More than one US flag was desecrated in the various rallies to allow open borders and amnesty for illegals but I am unaware of a single charge against those people.

Maybe it is just me, but seems to me the gentleman is being punished for exercising his First Amendment right. Lastly, to my knowledge, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, etc. are not running to his rescue. That also is telling IMO, as I am sure a Mexican national that had any charges laid against him for burning a US flag in Tucson, would have national attention and help.

Just my opinion though.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> It is apparently illegal to burn the Mexican flag in the US. This was all over my local news for a week.
> 
> 
> 
> > Warden faces the criminal-damage charge for harm done to the concrete shuffleboard court where Warden's group was burning the Mexican flag.... Warden said the charges are a direct result of political pressure from the Mexican Consulate. "If they saw something unlawful, why didn't they commit an arrest then?" Warden said.


According to the very excerpt you quoted, the man wasn't charged with burning the Mexican flag, he was charged with damaging the park shuffleboard court (presumably by laying the burning flag on it). Someone burning an American flag in the same manner could also be charged accordingly. There are many, many, many constitutionally permissible ways to indirectly ban flag burning (e.g., no open flames in public spaces), but politicians don't bother with those because it doesn't allow them to grandstand about "defending the flag" (ignoring, of course, that public flag burnings in the US are practically non-existent -- almost every single one on TV is happening overseas and would be unaffected by such a ban).


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Mexico is saying it is "unacceptable" but it occurred in the US and yes, the charge was "reckless burning". The charge was laid after the fact, after pressure was put on local Tucson officials by Mexican federal officials. My original question stands, when was the last time a US flag burner, in the US, was charged in a similar fashion? The point I am trying to make, and apparently not so well...., is it would seem there is a double standard *in the US* concerning the treatment of flag burners, depending on what country's flag is being burned. It is no wonder everyone that hates the US feels free to burn the US flag when that act is protected in the US, but burning a Mexican flag brings manufactured charges against one. More than one US flag was desecrated in the various rallies to allow open borders and amnesty for illegals but I am unaware of a single charge against those people.
> 
> Maybe it is just me, but seems to me the gentleman is being punished for exercising his First Amendment right. Lastly, to my knowledge, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, etc. are not running to his rescue. That also is telling IMO, as I am sure a Mexican national that had any charges laid against him for burning a US flag in Tucson, would have national attention and help.
> 
> Just my opinion though.


I wonder what would happen if I burned a Cross or a Star of David in my front yard, along with burning an American flag?

If you can burn a flag in the U.S., it should be okay to burn any flag of any country. I wonder if I went to Spain and burned the Spanish flag, what would happen to me?


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> I guess my desire is to not prevent people from burning the flag, but make them leave if they dislike the country and what the flag stands for so much.


What about people who happen not to think a nation should be the object of their main loyalty? As far as I know there is no place for them to live in that does not belong to a nation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Srynerson said:


> Someone burning an American flag in the same manner could also be charged accordingly.


You obviously are not reading all of my posts on this, merely one sentence. Scoring rhetorical points is phyrric and why I am keeping myself scarce here. Reality is much more important.

Srynerson, do these charges not seem manufactured to you? Can you find me a similar instance where similar charges were laid for a US flag burner? Does it not seem odd to you the charges were filed days after the happening, after Mexican officials pressured Tucson officials?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Étienne said:


> What about people who happen not to think a nation should be the object of their main loyalty? As far as I know there is no place for them to live in that does not belong to a nation.


True, unless you are independently wealthy and can buy your own soverign nation, we generally live under the flag of a particular country. My point is, as an American why stay here and complain about how bad it is, wish ill on the country and burn the flag, but continue to stay. If you didn't like France and the French governement, why not leave the country instead of burning the flag? There in lies the dilema. If I was upset with this country, maybe the freedom of being able to speak my mind is why I'd want to stay. What is the symbol of that freedom?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You obviously are not reading all of my posts on this, merely one sentence. Scoring rhetorical points is phyrric and why I am keeping myself scarce here. Reality is much more important.
> 
> Srynerson, do these charges not seem manufactured to you? Can you find me a similar instance where similar charges were laid for a US flag burner? Does it not seem odd to you the charges were filed days after the happening, after Mexican officials pressured Tucson officials?


I don't know why we're bending to Mexico's demands. And no, no American has been charged with the crimes that occur as a result of burning a flag.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Can you find me a similar instance where similar charges were laid for a US flag burner?


Yes. (July 9, 2005) "It is still unclear whether it was genuine rage against his native land or over-consumption of a frothy adult beverage that made Andrew Elisha Staley allegedly pull out a disposalable lighter and set fire to an American flag on the Fourth of July at a residence on Clark Street.The answer likely will remain unknown at least until he faces Judge Hugh E. DeLozier Jr. in Blount County General Sessions Court at 9 a.m. Monday on six charges, one of which is a state law against desecration of a venerated object.

. . . .

The 18-year-old Staley also is charged with unlawful (underage) consumption of alcohol, theft of property valued at less than $500, setting fire to personal property, criminal littering for tossing down a beer can and evading arrest for trying to run from the officer who responded to the scene and wrote in his report that he found the defendant standing over the still-burning flag with a lighter in his hand, laughing."

Staley was jailed for nine days, and his case was referred to a grand jury in February of this year. An archive of stories related to his case can be accessed at the website of the _Knoxville News-Sentinel._



> Lastly, to my knowledge, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, etc. are not running to his rescue. That also is telling IMO . . .


According the the Arizona Daily Star, the ACLU has apparently represented Mr. Warden in the past:

(January 25, 2005) "A Pima County man sued the county on Monday, claiming his constitutional rights were violated in 2004 when he was arrested on the steps of Superior Court as he tried to hand out political pamphlets. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Tucson on behalf of Roy Warden; the ACLU of Arizona is helping represent him."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> Yes. (July 9, 2005) "It is still unclear whether it was genuine rage against his native land or over-consumption of a frothy adult beverage that made Andrew Elisha Staley allegedly pull out a disposalable lighter and set fire to an American flag on the Fourth of July at a residence on Clark Street.The answer likely will remain unknown at least until he faces Judge Hugh E. DeLozier Jr. in Blount County General Sessions Court at 9 a.m. Monday on six charges, one of which is a state law against desecration of a venerated object.
> 
> . . . .
> 
> The 18-year-old Staley also is charged with unlawful (underage) consumption of alcohol, theft of property valued at less than $500, setting fire to personal property, criminal littering for tossing down a beer can and evading arrest for trying to run from the officer who responded to the scene and wrote in his report that he found the defendant standing over the still-burning flag with a lighter in his hand, laughing."


Bravo, you did find an example. So a drunk 18 year old engaged in hooliganism is comparable to a sober elderly man engaged in political discourse and demonstration? A drunk teenager that was arrested *on the spot and spent nine days in jail* after fleeing the police vs. an elderly man *that walked away from the incident a free citizen* only to have charges filed well after the incident and after Mexican officials applied pressure? Again with the rhetorical points and zero with the reality.

Edit: Not worth it. You are right Lushington, the charges filed against Mr. Warden have nothing to do with the fact he burned a Mexican flag during a pro-illegal rally in a city full of illegals, where the local federal Congressman goes into the desert to stock supply stations for illegals. He would have been charged for damaging the paint on a concrete shuffle board if he had been burning a Martha Stewart pillow case. You are quite correct, what was I thinking?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Bravo, you did find an example. So a drunk 18 year old engaged in hooliganism is comparable to a sober elderly man engaged in political discourse and demonstration? A drunk teenager that was arrested *on the spot and spent nine days in jail* after fleeing the police vs. an elderly man *that walked away from the incident a free citizen* only to have charges filed well after the incident and after Mexican officials applied pressure? Again with the rhetorical points and zero with the reality.
> 
> Edit: Not worth it. You are right Lushington, the charges filed against Mr. Warden have nothing to do with the fact he burned a Mexican flag during a pro-illegal rally in a city full of illegals, where the local federal Congressman goes into the desert to stock supply stations for illegals. He would have been charged for damaging the paint on a concrete shuffle board if he had been burning a Martha Stewart pillow case. You are quite correct, what was I thinking?


I see that you have edited your earlier, intemperate response. Pity. It contained many things I would have liked to address. In either event, you asked for a similar case to Mr. Warden's involving the burning of an American flag; I provided you with the most recent case of which I am aware. If you wish to distinguish it on the facts, go right ahead. The essential fact remains that Mr. Staley was charged with several offenses arising out of his little frolic, including a violation of Tennessee's flag-desecration statute; and for the record, Mr. Staley's case also involves protected political speech, as he was quoted by the arresting officer as saying that he hated America and wished to leave the country. According to the most recent press reports, Mr. Staley's case is still pending before a Knoxville grand jury, so who knows? perhaps it will end up being the vehicle that is used to test the continuing validity of _Johnson. _Or perhaps Mr. Warden's will be the test case. After all, the Supreme Court apparently rejected the "foreign dignities" doctrine in _Boos v. Barry_, which strongly suggests that burning the flag of a foreign nation is entitled to at least as much First Amendment protection, or lack thereof, as burning the Stars and Stripes. This might serve as a novel approach for those who would like to see _Johnson _and _Eichman _overruled. Time will tell I suppose.

Now to Mr. Warden. From what I can tell, he is a local Tucson gadfly and activist who opposes current US immigration policy, and engages in various activities protesting illegal immigration. He is apparently not averse to confrontation in advancing his views. Such people tend to get arrested from time-to-time, no matter what their political leaning. As to why Mr. Warden was charged a day after the flag-burning event: there could be many reasons for that. It is hardly unusual. If the _Arizona Daily Star_ is to be believed, Mr. Warden was involved in a similar incident in June of this year, when he was cited for assault and other offenses on June 6, three days after a confrontation at the Mexican consulate. In that case, the citation occured after the Tucson police reviewed a videotape in which Mr. Warden appeared to push and threaten several Mexican youths. A similar review of videotape may account for the Tucson police's delay in the flag-burning incident. I rather suspect that this was the case, as Mr. Warden had publicly burnt a Mexican flag without arrest or incident on least one previous occasion. One can watch him do so on a link available here:

On the other hand, might the Mexican consular corps be exerting pressure on local Tucson authorities to curtail anti-immigration protests, such as they are? I'd be very surprised if they were not: after all, such activity would clearly fall within the scope of a resident diplomat's many functions. However, if Mr. Warden's activities after his arrest on April 11 are any indication, such pressure has been decidedly ineffective. And I think Mr. Warden might take umbrage at being described as "elderly." From the press reports he appears to be a vigorous 58, still hale enough to engage in scuffles with opponents many years his junior and threaten to shoot them if necessary.

https://www.kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?s=4899698

I don't believe the fellow is ready for the pasture quite yet.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

Étienne said:


> What about people who happen not to think a nation should be the object of their main loyalty? As far as I know there is no place for them to live in that does not belong to a nation.


The object of main loyalty is usually one's family, which will generally trump any political entity. Nevertheless, there have been exceptions to this.

As for burning the US flag, I would make it a felony offense.



Trenditional said:


> True, unless you are independently wealthy and can buy your own soverign nation, we generally live under the flag of a particular country...


 In a practical sense one can be self-sovereign while not "owning" a country. See our previous discussion on the link below and comment there, as this takes us off topic of the flag burning issue.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?t=52045&highlight=self-sovereign


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Lushington said:


> I see that you have edited your earlier, intemperate response. Pity.


You misread my intention. The edit was because you simply are not worth the bandwidth. How do I know this? This tell me:


Lushington said:


> On the other hand, might the Mexican consular corps be exerting pressure on local Tucson authorities to curtail anti-immigration protests, such as they are?


You have drank the Kool Aide. It is not about "anti-immigration", it is about illegals. If you can not see the difference, which every indication is either you cannot or that you are doing this on purpose (much worse), then we have no need to talk.

I can certainly discern you consider yourself an attorney or are indeed one. You can certainly no doubt twist the law and quote case law at me in a superior fashion. Again though, doing this does not change reality. And for all this talk, you still did not answer a simple question: do you think Mr. Warden would have been charged for damaging the paint on a concrete shuffle board if he had burnt a Martha Stewart pillow case or do you think the charges were manufactured due to burning a Mexican flag during a pro-open border rally in a city full of illegals with a Congressman that goes into the desert to stock supply stations for illegals? Until then, I will not waste the bandwidth.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

<sigh>

I'd give him 10 years for simple /possession/ of a Martha Stewart pillow case, reduced to 5 if he burned the damn thing.



Wayfarer said:


> You misread my intention. The edit was because you simply are not worth the bandwidth. How do I know this? This tell me:
> 
> You have drank the Kool Aide. It is not about "anti-immigration", it is about illegals. If you can not see the difference, which every indication is either you cannot or that you are doing this on purpose (much worse), then we have no need to talk.
> 
> I can certainly discern you consider yourself an attorney or are indeed one. You can certainly no doubt twist the law and quote case law at me in a superior fashion. Again though, doing this does not change reality. And for all this talk, you still did not answer a simple question: do you think Mr. Warden would have been charged for damaging the paint on a concrete shuffle board if he had burnt a Martha Stewart pillow case or do you think the charges were manufactured due to burning a Mexican flag during a pro-open border rally in a city full of illegals with a Congressman that goes into the desert to stock supply stations for illegals? Until then, I will not waste the bandwidth.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> <sigh>
> 
> I'd give him 10 years for simple /possession/ of a Martha Stewart pillow case, reduced to 5 if he burned the damn thing.


Agreed. 'Nuff said.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You misread my intention. The edit was because you simply are not worth the bandwidth. How do I know this? This tell me:
> 
> You have drank the Kool Aide. It is not about "anti-immigration", it is about illegals. If you can not see the difference, which every indication is either you cannot or that you are doing this on purpose (much worse), then we have no need to talk.
> 
> I can certainly discern you consider yourself an attorney or are indeed one. You can certainly no doubt twist the law and quote case law at me in a superior fashion. Again though, doing this does not change reality. And for all this talk, you still did not answer a simple question: do you think Mr. Warden would have been charged for damaging the paint on a concrete shuffle board if he had burnt a Martha Stewart pillow case or do you think the charges were manufactured due to burning a Mexican flag during a pro-open border rally in a city full of illegals with a Congressman that goes into the desert to stock supply stations for illegals? Until then, I will not waste the bandwidth.


If you wish to disengage, that is fine with me. I certainly would if I were you, as your responses are declining in quality with each post. But before doing so, let us examine your hypothetical question. Would Mr. Warden have been arrested had he burnt a pillow case (I think we can dispense with the brand for purposes of the hypothetical) rather than a Mexican flag at the pro-immigration rally held in Tucson on April 10, 2006? No I don't believe that he would have. I rather suspect that had Mr. Warden, and his fellow "Border Guardians," appeared at the rally and burnt pillow cases, those attending in support of the immigrants would have considered them a curiousity and no confrontation or scuffle would have ensued. But Mr. Warden _et al_. burnt a Mexican flag, a confrontation and scuffle did ensue, six of Mr. Warden's opponents were arrested at the scene, and Mr. Warden was arrested the following day. That, as you say, is the reality. You apparently believe that Mr. Warden's arrest is the result of political intrigue; I certainly don't. You continue to talk about the damage to the concrete shuffleboard court as if that were the only charge leveled against Mr. Warden. It is not. The most serious charge is assault on the television cameraman; and I rather suspect that the delay in charging Mr. Warden was occasioned because no police officers observed this alleged assault at the time, but it came to light after police reviewed videotape of the incident. As for the reckless burning and criminal damage charges: prosecutors very often load up in their initial complaint, for many reasons, not least for purposes of later plea bargaining. Of course, I may be wrong, and Mr. Warden and his small band of "Border Guardians" are actually the subjects of a cross-border campaign of suppression and harassment; but I seriously doubt it. If Warden and his fellows are the subjects of such a campaign, how does one explain the fact that on April 9, 2006 they assembled before the Mexican consulate and burnt a Mexican flag; yet none of the Guardians were arrested at the time, nor was Mr. Warden charged for any conduct related to that protest when he was arrested and charged on April 11? If reckless burning is to serve as a proxy for suppressing the Border Guardians' message it appears that the Tucson authorities have missed a golden opportunity to do so.

As for drinking the Kool-Aid (an unforgivably lame debating trope): the discussion was about flag-burning as protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment, not immigration policy, and your attempt to shift the discussion in order to "score a rhetorical point" misfires badly (you will note that I stated Mr. Warden "engages in various activities protesting illegal immigration"). Your position has been that in Tucson the civil authorities, bowing to pressure from the "Mexican federal officials", will prosecute conduct clearly protected by the First Amendment if it challenges the status of Hispanic immigrants. I find this position implausible, and have provided you with the factual and legal basis for doing so. After making a half-hearted attempt to distinguish Mr. Staley's case from Mr. Warden's you have responded with absurd hypothetical questions, have accused me of "twist[ing] the law" (how, I pray you?), and have employed the ultimate tactic of inept polemicists everywhere: declaring one's opponent to be unworthy of one's time. Feeble, very feeble.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> My point is, as an American why stay here and complain about how bad it is, wish ill on the country and burn the flag, but continue to stay.


Because you think criticism will contribute to make it better? Because you think that there are no ideal places and probably all others share to some extent the same problems? I can think of so many reasons I have troubles understanding the validity of that argument.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

The flag-burning situation I remember most was when baseball player Rick Monday prevented a flag from being burned on the field 30 years ago. I really had to Google to find out if the culprits were arrested; apparently charges were filed, but no one said for what, flag-burning or jumping onto the field.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Because you think criticism will contribute to make it better? Because you think that there are no ideal places and probably all others share to some extent the same problems? I can think of so many reasons I have troubles understanding the validity of that argument.


Complain fine, picket and rally even better, write your congressman wonderful.

To burn the flag, to me says, "I hate everything about this country (the people, the place, everything)." In my opinion if you think a place is that bad, leave because there has to be someplace that is better than that.

Of course I understand that no place is perfect and as an American I can voice my disapproval of how my government is operating without feeling I need to leave the country. That said, I'd never burn an American flag. The people running the governement are not getting the job done, the country isn't the problem. Burning the flag is saying the country and all of it's people are wrong or bad, which I don't agree with.

That was why I tried to use the analogy of a professional sports team. You can be a die-hard fan of the Chicago Cubs. They could be in last place and you'll still root for them and go to the games. At the same time, you might say to people, "The team is horrible, they need better pitching, hitting etc." What I wouldn't understand is to continue supporting the Cubs and saying, "I hate this team, I don't like the organization or baseball, I wish they would cease to exist as a team." When someone burns a flag, to me they are saying they want America to cease to exist.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Trenditional said:


> When someone burns a flag, to me they are saying they want America to cease to exist.


I don't think they are necessarily saying anything of the kind. I think they are using cheap shock tactics to draw attention to their cause. Of course, being that shrill will turn off far more people than it attracts.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You obviously are not reading all of my posts on this, merely one sentence. Scoring rhetorical points is phyrric and why I am keeping myself scarce here. Reality is much more important.
> 
> Srynerson, do these charges not seem manufactured to you? Can you find me a similar instance where similar charges were laid for a US flag burner?


United States v. Eichmann, 496 U.S. 310, 313 n.1 (1990) specifically notes that the defendants there were charged not only with flag burning but also "willful injury to federal property in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1361 and 1362" and that the finding that the anti-flag burning statute at issue was unconstitutional did "nothing" to affect the constitutionality of prosecuting the defendants on those other charges: https://www.esquilax.com/flag/eichman.html



> Does it not seem odd to you the charges were filed days after the happening, after Mexican officials pressured Tucson officials?


I don't see your point. Your complaint was, "It is apparently illegal to burn the Mexican flag in the US. * * * I have yet to ever see a similar charge for the burning of the US flag. " Whether the prosecutor filed charges because Mexican officials asked him to, or whether he did so because it is an election year, or whatever, isn't relevant to the original issue, which is whether someone can be prosecuted for burning an American flag (the answer being, "yes," so long as the prosecution is for other criminal acts associated with the burning, not just the burning itself).


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Lax Player,

That was a very kind comment about your uncle, thank you for sharing. I have been in and out of the forum, wanted to tell you this.
And he was right on in what he said.
Thanks again


I am staying away from this one.
I retired, after 25 years of military service, but was a hippie in my heyday, and wore the flag, and I think I burned one.
Can not remember that time, head was cloudy!
LOL

Nice day gents


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You misread my intention. The edit was because you simply are not worth the bandwidth. How do I know this? This tell me:
> 
> You have drank the Kool Aide.


Nice to see you reacting in the usual way when presented with facts which plainly contradict your position, a position based on little other than prejudice and misinformation.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Could this be one of those "hot button topics"? Let's not go down the _"Your mother wears combat boots"_ road.

Cheers! :icon_smile:


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

KenR said:


> Could this be one of those "hot button topics"? Let's not go down the _"Your mother wears combat boots"_ road.
> 
> Cheers! :icon_smile:


Ken,

I agree with you completely. I never intended any name calling or personal attacks behind the topic. I was just wondering what people felt about flag burning.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Seems to me that the very act of burning the flag, perhaps curiously, is a powerful embodiment of the actual freedoms it represents.
> 
> I've never had the urge myself, but I don't get too worked up about this topic, for the reason above. I think there are more pressing social issues.


Couldn't agree more - seems obvious to me.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

It's funny how people agree with the First Amendment until somebody expresses themselves in a way that pisses them off - then they are all for making that particular type of expression "a felony offense" (in the words of one poster on this thread). What these people seem to be forgetting is that the whole purpose of the First Amendment was to protect unpopular speech. You don't need a First Amendment to protect speech that everybody is happy with because nobody is going to attack the person that engaged in that type of expression. What you need the First Amendment for is to protect speech that is unpopular and that invokes the type of emotion in other people that would lead them to call for the imprisonment of people that engage in that type of expression. I'm glad that the people who actually make these decisions are more level-headed than some of the people posting on this thread.

I also find it funny how people who supposedly believe in "freedom" and "liberty" and who proclaim these as the highest values and who are willing to send their fellow citizens to war and to their deaths to supposedly spread and protect "freedom" and "liberty" are so quick to give those freedoms and liberties away in their own country. It will be a sad day for the United States of America, for freedom, for liberty, for democracy, for open societies the day it becomes illegal to burn the American flag in the United States.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

odoreater said:


> It's funny how people agree with the First Amendment until somebody expresses themselves in a way that pisses them off - then they are all for making that particular type of expression "a felony offense" (in the words of one poster on this thread). What these people seem to be forgetting is that the whole purpose of the First Amendment was to protect unpopular speech. You don't need a First Amendment to protect speech that everybody is happy with because nobody is going to attack the person that engaged in that type of expression. What you need the First Amendment for is to protect speech that is unpopular and that invokes the type of emotion in other people that would lead them to call for the imprisonment of people that engage in that type of expression. I'm glad that the people who actually make these decisions are more level-headed than some of the people posting on this thread.
> 
> I also find it funny how people who supposedly believe in "freedom" and "liberty" and who proclaim these as the highest values and who are willing to send their fellow citizens to war and to their deaths to supposedly spread and protect "freedom" and "liberty" are so quick to give those freedoms and liberties away in their own country. It will be a sad day for the United States of America, for freedom, for liberty, for democracy, for open societies the day it becomes illegal to burn the American flag in the United States.


Very well put!

But...can I burn a cross in my front yard?


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

odoreater said:


> ... "a felony offense" (in the words of one poster on this thread)...


Actually two posters, if you read the whole thread.



odoreater said:


> ...What these people seem to be forgetting is that the whole purpose of the First Amendment was to protect unpopular speech. You don't need a First Amendment to protect speech that everybody is happy with because nobody is going to attack the person that engaged in that type of expression. What you need the First Amendment for is to protect speech that is unpopular and that invokes the type of emotion in other people that would lead them to call for the imprisonment of people that engage in that type of expression. I'm glad that the people who actually make these decisions are more level-headed than some of the people posting on this thread...


What makes you think anyone is forgetting anything? Flag burning is an action of "burning". It is not the action of "speech" nor the action of The Press. Nor can flag burning be said to be the intention of The Founders when they penned the First Amendment. It is only revisionst courts that have rendered the interpretation whereby flag burning is "freedom of expression." By their standard, then almost any action can fall under the category of freedom of expression.

M8


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> Actually two posters, if you read the whole thread.
> 
> What makes you think anyone is forgetting anything? Flag burning is an action of "burning". It is not the action of "speech" nor the action of The Press. Nor can flag burning be said to be the intention of The Founders when they penned the First Amendment. It is only revisionst courts that have rendered the interpretation whereby flag burning is "freedom of expression." By their standard, then almost any action can fall under the category of freedom of expression.
> 
> M8


I'm not about to school you on First Amendment law. We'll just let the people decide which argument is more persuasive. All I will say is that sometimes an "act" such as burning a flag can contain a greater message than actually speaking words. Our courts, for a long time, have held that this is a type of speech act that we want to protect and we have accepted that interpretation by rejecting attempts to change it.

In addition, the action of "burning" can be (and is) proscribed by laws. For example, a state can pass a law that you cannot burn anything on public property (these are called time/place/manner regulations). But, most Americans (myself included) do not want the government telling us what kind of expression we can engage in on our own private property. For someone that claims to be some kind of "self-sovereign" individual, you sure seem quite willing to give your rights away.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Trenditional said:


> Very well put!
> 
> But...can I burn a cross in my front yard?


Absolutely, just don't burn it on someone else's yard.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

odoreater said:


> ...For someone that claims to be some kind of "self-sovereign" individual, you sure seem quite willing to give your rights away.


You just can't resist your smart-ass quips, can you? I bet you style yourself as "witty."

Being "self-sovereign" does not mean that one engages in the behavior of insulting a political entity, like one's own country or the country of another, by engaging in the act of flag burning.

So shall we turn this thread into a flame war and thereby exercise our freedom of expression?

M8


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> You just can't resist your smart-ass quips, can you? I bet you style yourself as "witty."
> 
> Being "self-sovereign" does not mean that one engages in the behavior of insulting a political entity, like one's own country or the country of another, by engaging in the act of flag burning.
> 
> ...


God forbid we insult anyone or their country.

I don't engage in flag burning either, but I'll defend anyone's right to engage in that act as a form of expression.

By the way, protecting expression that insults a political entity or a country, and especially our own country, is the very essence of the First Amendment.


----------



## Martinis at 8 (Apr 14, 2006)

odoreater said:


> ... By the way, protecting expression that insults a political entity or a country, and especially our own country, is the very essence of the First Amendment.


I doubt that it is the very "essence". Go insult your neighbor, or a stranger on the bus, and see if you don't get a knuckle sandwich as your "essence".

Dissent in the form of speech doesn't necessarily mean being an insulting heathen. There is a brand of person that likes to hide behind the 1st simply so that he/she can go running their mouth, burn flags, incite riot, etc.

M8


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Martinis at 8 said:


> I doubt that it is the very "essence". Go insult your neighbor, or a stranger on the bus, and see if you don't get a knuckle sandwich as your "essence".
> 
> Dissent in the form of speech doesn't necessarily mean being an insulting heathen. There is a brand of person that likes to hide behind the 1st simply so that he/she can go running their mouth, burn flags, incite riot, etc.
> 
> M8


How do you go from me talking about insulting a political entity or your country as being the essence of the First Amendment to insulting neighbors and strangers? I didn't say anything about insulting neighbors or strangers. I specifically said that "protecting expression that insults a political entity or a country, and especially our own country, is the very essence of the First Amendment" - nothing about strangers or neighbors in my statement. Quite a jump you make there. By the way, speech that would cause your neighbors to give you a "knuckle sandwich" is called "fighting words" and it is not protected by the First Amendment (doh...I said I wasn't going to school you on First Amendment law).

Also, who's talking about inciting riots? Speech that incites riotes is not protected by the First Amendment either (doh...there I go again...).

Why do you think the founding fathers put the First Amendment in the Constitution, to protect speech that everyone agrees with and noone is angered/insulted by? Why would speech that everyone agrees with and insults noone need protection?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

Martinis at 8 said:


> I doubt that it is the very "essence". Go insult your neighbor, or a stranger on the bus, and see if you don't get a knuckle sandwich as your "essence".
> 
> Dissent in the form of speech doesn't necessarily mean being an insulting heathen. There is a brand of person that likes to hide behind the 1st simply so that he/she can go running their mouth, burn flags, incite riot, etc.
> 
> M8


M8,

Your comment brings Al Sharpton to mind.

Though, I do agree and I want the government involved in our lives as least as possible. For me it is hard to understand the purpose of burning a flag as a form of rebellion or demonstration. I think my problem is, I put too much value on what the flag represents as opposed to the protester who is burning a piece of cloth. Without belief and commitment to the flag, they might as well burn an old shirt, because at that point they have degraded the flag to nothing but a piece of cloth any way.

M8's comment about a knuckle sandwich is in a sense appropriate. I've often thought someone burning an American flag here in U.S. could be an incitement to riot. Though others have said friends and family, who have served under the flag, said they understand the protesters and don't mind them burning the flag, I think these are the minority. I think a larger number of men and women who have fought for this country would take significant offense to someone burning a flag in front of them.

As with any issue there will always be 2 sides. Before this thread gets way to out of hand, I say we agree to take our sides on this one and move on to the next topic.


----------



## ccffm1 (Jul 31, 2005)

At least this guy was red - hot in his conviction.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*The Art of Burning*



Trenditional said:


> *I wonder what would happen if I burned a Cross or a Star of David in my front yard, along with burning an American flag*?


Did anyone try this?:icon_scratch:


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

No need. Someone already did it, back in 1990 in St. Paul. His first amendment rights to do that (but not to trespass, as he did it on someone else's lawn) were upheld. Unanimous decision.


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

Another American veteran for "meh." 
Some of the countries that do prohibit it are not ones I'd care to be on the list with. 
I suspect this is an American thing. We tend to project our biases and beliefs as universal. 
It seems to get a rise out of those the burners intend it to.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

As a Veteren Marine, I find the act of burning Old Glory despicable. I'd personally like to wrap anyone who does it in her while she is being "retired." That said, there is no law against it, and it technically falls under the First Amendment protections, and I served to protect their right to do so.

--------

That said... Burning the flag is a means of showing that government is no longer representing the ideals of the people (or the person burning the flag). It's a show of dissent in extremism (without repercussion). It is as borderline violent/non-violent as you can get as well.


----------

