Should the freedom of speech exclude the burning of the American Flag?

Question

I personally believe that it should. I think that it should be a crime to burn the american flag. Its a crime to commit slander or to defame another's character but why is it ok to defame the country that we live in by burning the flag? If you don't like this country's govt., then move... that's what I say.

But before anyone who opposes me gets all fired up, this is just my personal belief. I'm always open to what other people have to say and I respect their views even if they are against my own. We don't have to be enemies because of what I choose to believe in.

So let me hear your opinion...

Answer 1

No, it should not be excluded.

The freedom of expression in the First Amendment, ironically, protects those that would desecrate the very symbol of the country with the constitution that protects their right to desecrate that very symbol ad nauseum. And this is why democracy in general is messy.

It is full of seeming contradictions, oxymoronic legal, moral and ethical situations and it insists that we get each other angry and at the same time we all get along well enough to make things work.

I may or may not agree with you that people should NOT burn or desecrate the flag of any country. That is our right as citizens of the USA, to have and express those opinions. And in this country you have the right to be offended. We excercise this right regularly and often.

It is an easy and pat answer to tell people to leave the country they seem to hate enough to burn the flag of. In truth it isn't that easy. And it doesn't address the actual issue either. It is a tried and true way for centuries to burn things in effigy as a form of protest against what that thing symbolizes. Sometimes figures of people are burned in effigy. Sometimes it is flags.

Slander and defemation of character of an individual can not be succesfully compared to the burning of a flag. They aren't the same in any way. One is ruining a person's asset, their reputation. The other is saying your mad and want something changed.

People often do not take the time to understand the role of the govenment in their lives, especially in the USA. We fight paying more taxes and at the same time complain that the roads have potholes, the line in the DMV is too long, the mail service isn't fast enough, and the police are never around when you need them. All of which are paid for by your taxes that you don't want to pay so that you can have the problems fixed you are complaining about.

And so the protester often is mad about something the government is doing or not doing and wants it stopped or started all things depending. They really aren't saying the whole system, government and country sucks and should rot in hell, though that may be what they are verbally saying. The truth is often far less expansive than that. The issue is ussually finite if very important.

Should you move out of the house over one arguement with your spouse, roommate, cousin etc? Rarely. Should you burn them in effigy? Well, you're allowed to.

Whether or not you should is a choice only you can make but that everyone is allowed to comment on because of our first amendment rights. And so goes the discussion on flag burning as well.

Answer 2

I disagree with you for the following reasons..
1)Burning the flag is a symbolic action, therefore it physically does not hurt anybody. Also since this flag represents or at least ought to represent the values of America, one of them being freedom of speech which the Founding Fathers found absolutely necessary for the society's and individuals' well being, it would be at best ironic to ban the action of burning it, i.e. expressing an opinion. Burning the flag might be an action which causes severely negative feelings to some, but that's why people do it, to demonstrate a dissapointment of what it now represents and by extrapolation their wish that it represented something better.
2) By banning this, you welcome more of it. If it becomes illegal, people will seek to be doing it more often, since it will then be causing even more controversy and will be getting even more attention from the media etc.. As said above, the main motive of a person burning the flag is the attention and the reactions.
Finally, not liking a country's government does not mean you don't like the country and vice versa. If say one U.S administration is catastrophic for the country, but the ones which gain from this disaster support the government, does it mean they like the country? Burning the flag, as strange as it may sound, might stem from bigger concerns and deeper involvement than waving the flag like a robot, just because you feel good doing it. Questioning things is good, especially in a country born by high ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy.

Answer 3

Defamation or slander or libel are crimes because they are lies. Not commentary or a true statements, those are opinions or facts. So, burning an American flag is more or less commentary, an opinion, and not defamation. Defamation would be lying about the nation with intent to do it harm.

The American flag is more than a national identifier, it's a symbol of freedom. But if freedom of political expression, even anti-government expression, is restricted by placing a protected status upon it, it would taint the flag and its meaning more than a thousand flag burnings would. That's the irony of it all, that certain representatives and senators are willing to erode the flag's meaning to protect its physical form.

Answer 4

Your analogies for why it oughtn't be allowed are not very convincing. If you are just citing examples of speech that is restricted, that doesn't justify why this specifically should be restricted speech. If you are saying they are analogous situations, I don't see how. It isn't illegal to say bad things about other peoples' characters, it is illegal to say bad AND UNTRUE ('undeserved') things about other peoples' characters. So unless you can explain how someone burning the flag does 'undeserved' material damage to the image/reputation of the country, these analogies don't hold water.
I don't have a strong opinion on the issue myself. I default to saying it should be allowed just because I am a civil libertarian generally. I can't think of any other way to express the same sentiment anywhere near as rapidly as by burning a flag. And as long as we're analogizing to character defamation, isn't the characterization accurate many of the times people are burning the flag? When Democrats pass gun control laws and the Supreme Court upholds them, I think that is pretty clearly "burning" the 2nd amendment. When Republicans say that people captured in the United States but labeled enemy combatants aren't entitled to habeas corpus, I think that is "burning" the habeas clause of Art 1 Sec 8 and the 5th Amendment.

Answer 5

I have never understood the idolatry on behalf of the American flag. The flag of a country is only a symbol, it is not the nation itself. When someone burns an American flag it demonstrates not that they necessarily hate the United States but only that they are angry with an action taken in the name of the United States.

I have never personally burned a US flag but I understand the urge to do so. I was born in this country as were 90% of my relatives. I am a member of the tiny number of people who actually vote in every national election, I pay taxes, I go to school to improve myself, and I work. It's my nation, my government, and my flag also. I have the Constitutionally protected right to express my grievances with the government I voted for and pay for through taxes , and if they don't listen, I should have the right to express my frustration with them through burning a symbol of that government.

And by-the-way, the US flag code states that a flag that is too soiled or torn to function as a flag should be burned in a special ceremony. I witnessed one of these ceremonies a long time ago as a Cub Scout. It was the weirdest thing I ever saw -- it was like a funeral for a fallen soldier but for a flag. Something very pagan and almost primal about a flag burning ceremony.

Answer 6

Yes... our founding fathers were "flag-burners" themselves in a sense. They fought against England and could have been considered extremely unpatriotic. It is nothing like crying fire in a crowded theater! You simply CANNOT tell people what they can and cannot burn. Not only that, but if we deem it unlawful to be unpatriotic, America is on a terrible path. It is people like you who give conservatives a bad name. Also, I cannot stand it when people burn flags, but I don't think something should be illegal just because I don't like it.

Answer 7

I can only echo what was said by Bostonian, the sergeant retired after 21 years of honorable service to his country in uniform. Burning the flag is a stupid act meant to engender hatred and controversy. But the flag itself--the 3 x 5 piece of cloth, most likely made in China--is a symbol, and how one handles it is a symbolic act that is appropriately covered by the First Amendment.

Moreover, our toleration of the handful of knuckleheads who burn the flag (at least within the US) should stand in proud contrast to, say, the Muslim over-reaction to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. We're a strong, mature society, and we can take the occasional indignity.

Answer 8

Hell no!

I served this country honorably for over 21 years. The key component of the oath I took was "To protect and defend The Constitution of the United States of America."

The Constitution, and the freedoms that it gives us, is the MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT ever envisioned by human-kind. It guarantees Nazis the right to speak their mind and spread their hate. It guarantees YOU to speak your position on this issue. And it guarantees ME the right to publicly disagree with you. It guarantees you the right to worship as you please and me the right to not worship if I choose not to.

One does not have to agree with the position another takes on any issue, but we all have a DUTY to defend their right to their opinion and the manner that they express it as long as it does not directly harm another person -- the reason you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and claim Freedom of Speech as a defense. While you may not agree with the desecration of the flag, it does NOT do you any direct harm.

While I personally would never desecrate the flag or treat it with disrespect, I would defend TO THE DEATH the right of another to do so if he or she felt that that is how they had to express their opinion.

Keep in mind that the guy flying down the road with 2 tattered flags attached to his rear windows IS also mistreating the flag, yet few folks will call him on it. (BTW, I do!) It's improperly displayed (the Flag Code says it must be attached to the vehicle frame or fender) and it is worn beyond serviceability.

Now, were someone to desecrate The Constitution (the original, not a copy) I'd have to intervene.

Answer 9

For something to be slander or libel, very specific false and damaging allegations need to be made. Burning a flag is not specific enough and besides, "The Country" cannot be slandered. It's just some vague entity. Flag burning is protected speech, just like other speech.

If I burn a flag underneath a sign that says, "This is what George W. Bush is doing to my country." How have I slandered the country?

Answer 10

I personally feel the same. The American flag is more than a piece of cloth. It should be a crime to burn it. Not a pet-ti crime either, something with serious repercussions. You got some states with law fining people who have frayed flags flying. I come from a line of military service members. To burn our flag is beyond disrespect. To do so as a form of speech is like having someone disrespect the USA in the worst way.