Flag Desecration Again
or
More on Michelle K's Excellent Point
In case you missed Michelle K's comment on the flag desecration amendment, do go check it out.
My attitudes about the flag are, I suppose, rather out of the mainstream, though I'm not sure why that is. I treat the flag respectfully, though I regret that it has been turned into something of a symbol of the right wing. I observe the rules for flying the flag (this link thanks also to Michelle K), but do not--and never will--stand for or recite the Pledge Of Allegiance. I don't pledge any allegiance to the flag; my allegiance is to the Constitution and its principles. I do recognize that some good and intelligent people--Wesley Clark, for example--favor the amendment. I believe that they are rather clearly wrong, but I'm not interested in making that case right now.
But it has long annoyed me that the flag is treated improperly so much of the time. I find it particularly irksome that it is the very people who fetishize the flag who are most likely to mistreat it. Every time I see a dirty, worn out American flag flying from the roof of a car I feel a little twinge of irritation. I've seen many flags hanging mournfully along back roads in Virginia and North Carolina, often in the rain, often unilluminated at night, and I've many times been tempted to rescue them from this mistreatment.
I've complained about this phenomenon for several years, but I didn't see what Michelle K saw: that these facts can be used to help people see reason in the debate about the flag desecration amendment. Her point, as I understand it, is this: if there is to be such an amendment it MUST cover all instances of mistreatment of the flag. Any version of the flag desecration amendment will constitute a violation of the First Amendment, of course. But an amendment that specifically disallows flag desecration when and only when it is an act of political expression is too egregious a violation of the the First Amendment to be contemplated even by the most ardent flag fetishist. However, any amendment which does make any desecration of the flag illegal will be unacceptable to those who tend to support the amendment, as it will force them to stop wearing the flag on their clothing and so forth. Since one is not to represent the flag on material that is easily torn, even the popular American flag stamps would apparently be illegal under such a law. (Incidentally, I really like those stamps but have decided not to use them anymore since they do seem to be in violation of the flag rules.)
Michelle K also notes that it is illegal to use the flag for commercial purposes. So were such an amendment to be passed, Fox News would [apparently] have to remove the little flag in the upper left-hand corner of their screen. [More to the point: flags couldn't be used in advertisements.]
Cases of burning the flag for purposes of political expression are rare indeed, but instances of casual desecration like those described above are extremely common. If an even vaguely coherent flag desecration amendment were passed it would be a dark day for America and for the principle of free expression. But there would be a kind of poetic justice in it, since such an amendment would put more flag fetishists than First Amendment fans in the slammer.
or
More on Michelle K's Excellent Point
In case you missed Michelle K's comment on the flag desecration amendment, do go check it out.
My attitudes about the flag are, I suppose, rather out of the mainstream, though I'm not sure why that is. I treat the flag respectfully, though I regret that it has been turned into something of a symbol of the right wing. I observe the rules for flying the flag (this link thanks also to Michelle K), but do not--and never will--stand for or recite the Pledge Of Allegiance. I don't pledge any allegiance to the flag; my allegiance is to the Constitution and its principles. I do recognize that some good and intelligent people--Wesley Clark, for example--favor the amendment. I believe that they are rather clearly wrong, but I'm not interested in making that case right now.
But it has long annoyed me that the flag is treated improperly so much of the time. I find it particularly irksome that it is the very people who fetishize the flag who are most likely to mistreat it. Every time I see a dirty, worn out American flag flying from the roof of a car I feel a little twinge of irritation. I've seen many flags hanging mournfully along back roads in Virginia and North Carolina, often in the rain, often unilluminated at night, and I've many times been tempted to rescue them from this mistreatment.
I've complained about this phenomenon for several years, but I didn't see what Michelle K saw: that these facts can be used to help people see reason in the debate about the flag desecration amendment. Her point, as I understand it, is this: if there is to be such an amendment it MUST cover all instances of mistreatment of the flag. Any version of the flag desecration amendment will constitute a violation of the First Amendment, of course. But an amendment that specifically disallows flag desecration when and only when it is an act of political expression is too egregious a violation of the the First Amendment to be contemplated even by the most ardent flag fetishist. However, any amendment which does make any desecration of the flag illegal will be unacceptable to those who tend to support the amendment, as it will force them to stop wearing the flag on their clothing and so forth. Since one is not to represent the flag on material that is easily torn, even the popular American flag stamps would apparently be illegal under such a law. (Incidentally, I really like those stamps but have decided not to use them anymore since they do seem to be in violation of the flag rules.)
Michelle K also notes that it is illegal to use the flag for commercial purposes. So were such an amendment to be passed, Fox News would [apparently] have to remove the little flag in the upper left-hand corner of their screen. [More to the point: flags couldn't be used in advertisements.]
Cases of burning the flag for purposes of political expression are rare indeed, but instances of casual desecration like those described above are extremely common. If an even vaguely coherent flag desecration amendment were passed it would be a dark day for America and for the principle of free expression. But there would be a kind of poetic justice in it, since such an amendment would put more flag fetishists than First Amendment fans in the slammer.
posted by Winston Smith at
10:47 AM
4 Comments:
I've actually been ranting about treatment of the flag for a long time, but it doesn't seem to do any good. The people who, as has already been said, are most adamant about a flag-burning amendment are also those who treat the flag with the most disrespect.
My hope is that if they realized that they aren't following the regulations for how the flag should be treated--if they realize that they themselves are treating the flag with disrespect--then they'll think twice.
I mean, to dispose of a flag properly you have to burn it, so as you said, they'd have to tailor a flag burning amendment to allow for such circumstances. But I have to wonder how the people with old raggedy flags dispose of their worn out flags. Do they just thrown them in the trash? Why doesn't this strike them as worse than burning a flag as a political statment?
And interestingly enough, if I remember correctly, the original flag regulations were created as a response to the gross commercialization of the flag.
And thanks you for bringing this point up so that others notice and will hopefully pay attention to how the flag is being treated. I'd think that our current treatment of the flag, expecially for advertising, reflects upon our society far more than the fact it is legal to burn a flag as a political statement
Winston, if the bill creates a new amendment, can it violate the First Amendment? Wouldn't they be on the same level, Constitutionally speaking? Is there Supreme Court review of a new amendment?
It's pretty clear that a prohibition of political expression is exactly what Republicans want in banning flag-burning, and they don't care if they have to run over the First Amendment to get it.
But, no, there is no Supreme Court review of a new amendment's constitutionality.
Duke--
I dunno. Is there a constitutional scholar in the house?
It's clear that (a very stupid) congress could pass contradictory amendments...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home