Flag burning is not an issue of free speech.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm tired of hearing morons speak of flag-burning as if it were a free-speech issue.  Yeah, perhaps in some sense it is, but have we entirely forgotten about property rights?  

Glad I got that out.  Now I will sit back and see how many people think I want to outlaw flag-burning.

[jefnvk]

So, are you complaining about idiots that can't find a better andoriginal way of expressing their feelings, idiots that want to keep people from burning private propery, idiots that keep making an issue out of trivial things, or what?

[Guest]

I believe he's complaining that the issue is being presented legally as a free-speech issue when, in fact, it is better addressed as a property rights issue. It's my property, I can burn it if I want.

[K Frame]

I have no problem with a protester burning a flag.

As long as the protestor doesn't have any problem with me burning him as an exercise of my free speech rights.

Hell, if it's a property rights thing, I'll even give him $10 bucks for his clothes before I burn them. If he's in them, he didn't surrender them quickly enough.

Where's Mox Mox when you need him?

[griz]

Flag burning is not an issue of free speech.

perhaps in some sense it is

I'll go with the second quote, but I suspect you see no need to outlaw the burning of personal property.

[Jamisjockey]

I believe he's complaining that the issue is being presented legally as a free-speech issue when, in fact, it is better addressed as a property rights issue. It's my property, I can burn it if I want.

Ding, ding, ding, winner!

Once I drop my $9.95 for an original CHICOM produced American Flag at Walmart, it becomes my property.  Nobody gets harmed.  
Oh, and I'm a vetran.  When someone wants to outlaw freedom of speech, I want to punch them in the mouth.  I gave 5 good years to this country.  I have friends who've given much, much more.  Free speech, free expression, shouldn't be outlawed or restricted (As long as there is no direct harm, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre).  

Will I ever burn an American flag?  Not unless is wrapped around an efigy of the Shrub.

[Chris]

I think that what he is saying is that if you legally purchase a flag, you should be able to do as you wish with your own property, even if that means destroying it.  Agreed.  And, also agreed that if done as protest, it can also be protected free speech.

[Perd Hapley]

In general, I'm just annoyed at our pathetic conception of rights in this country.  People seem to think Congress is allowed to ban anything that isn't spelled out specifically under the Bill of Rights.  I trust APS'ers recognize that the Constitution's delineation of rights is NOT all-inclusive.  

The right to personal property, which arguably was most important to the founders is utterly and openly trampled by any number of laws.  No one seems to recognize that animals are property, and I have a right to abuse or kill my own animals in any way I see fit.  No one seems to understand that a Black business-owner or a White business owner has every right to discriminate against people of another race in their business or personal lives.  

The Founders, if I understand aright, observed a distinction between natural rights and civil rights.  Those who have forgotten those distinctions make silly claims that unnaturalized immigrants have the same civil rights that citizens do, or that terrorists have no rights at all.  The first error treats all rights as inherent, natural human rights, the second error is to conceive of all rights as civil rights that are dependent on citizenship.  

Or am I off somewhere here?

[richyoung]

It was a proposed CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMANT!  No "free speech" or other such issues apply - since IF it had passed it would have CHANGED THE CONSTITUTION!  Thats WHY there is a process ot do that!

[richyoung]

 No one seems to recognize that animals are property, and I have a right to abuse or kill my own animals in any way I see fit. ....Or am I off somewhere here?

Yes, you are off.  Animals are "chatttel" - a type of property which does indeed have restrictions against abusing, and in some cases, killing them.  BTW, this is the same category wives, children, indentured servants, and slaves fall into.  You will kindly note any number of people sent to prison for, for example, setting puppies on fire, etc.

[Guest]

It's very simple. If one burns a flag that does not belong to them, then they are destroying someone else's property, if they burn their own they are simply doing what they wish with something that they own.

I agree, there is no free-speech issue here. I am not saying that burning a flag is not a matter of protected speach, what I am saying is that it doesnt matter if its protected speech or not. You dont need the protection of the first ammendment to destroy something that belongs to you.

[Leatherneck]

No matter how offensive it is to me to see the American flag disrespectfully burned, it is nowhere nearly as offensive as the senators' trying to raise their popularity with their constituents by introducing this as a potential amendment to the Constitution. They treat us as Morons.

TC

[Antibubba]

Flag-covered beer cozies.  Stars and Stripes thongs and doggy sweaters.  Tell me again WHY this is a sacred symbol?

What about burning a T-shirt with a flag on it-would that be a crime?  

I'd like to codify a law of nature:  If a politician proposes a law against burning the American flag, it means he has run out of ideas.


Mike Irwin said:

I have no problem with a protester burning a flag.

As long as the protestor doesn't have any problem with me burning him as an exercise of my free speech rights.

Hell, if it's a property rights thing, I'll even give him $10 bucks for his clothes before I burn them. If he's in them, he didn't surrender them quickly enough.

Mike, even if you're 90% joking, I'm disappointed.  A flag is a symbol.  Period.  It represents a priceless idea, but in and of itself it has little value.  If the flag itself were sacred we wouldn't let the Chinese manufacture them in sweatshops.  

You have a right to be angry, and to counter a powerful statement like that with your own.  But I hope you see the irony of abrogating your nation's ideals by violently suppressing another's right to speak out.

[Perd Hapley]

Well said, c-yeager.  It still seems there would be some first amendment issues, however, depending on how the flag were burned.  If it were burned during a public demonstration, for example.  

 No one seems to recognize that animals are property, and I have a right to abuse or kill my own animals in any way I see fit. ....Or am I off somewhere here?

Yes, you are off.  Animals are "chatttel" - a type of property which does indeed have restrictions against abusing, and in some cases, killing them.  BTW, this is the same category wives, children, indentured servants, and slaves fall into.  You will kindly note any number of people sent to prison for, for example, setting puppies on fire, etc.

You will kindly note that certain city buses used to be segregated by law.  This does not mean that Blacks did not have a right to use public transportation - simply that their right was not recognized.  You are also encouraged to consider that an enlightened, civilized nation should neither encourage the abuse of animals, nor observe such sad legal categories as chattel, femme covert, etc.  Nor should they debase the idea of rights by projecting them on dumb beasts.

[The Rabbi]

You will kindly note that certain city buses used to be segregated by law.  This does not mean that Blacks did not have a right to use public transportation - simply that their right was not recognized.  You are also encouraged to consider that an enlightened, civilized nation should neither encourage the abuse of animals, nor observe such sad legal categories as chattel, femme covert, etc.  Nor should they debase the idea of rights by projecting them on dumb beasts.

There is no right to use public transportation.  Store owners do not have the right to discriminate based on race.

[Perd Hapley]

There is no right to use public transportation.  Store owners do not have the right to discriminate based on race.

Really?  Then the local Nation of Islam chapter must allow me to join.  Then white supremacists cannot deny their black neighbors entrance into their back-yard barbecue.  Then you cannot deny neo-Nazis the right to sit in on your synagogue.  As long as they sit quietly, you cannot deny them their "rights," can you?  

Yes, I know, you will interpose this chimerical difference between businesses and homes.  Very nice.  Very arbitrary.  

Isn't public transportation publicly funded?  I'm not talking about a privately-run taxi company here.   I suppose the Post Office is allowed to refuse service to Asians, no?

[richyoung]

You will kindly note that certain city buses used to be segregated by law.

Relevance to chattels - if any?

This does not mean that Blacks did not have a right to use public transportation - simply that their right was not recognized.

They could use it - they just had to sit in the back of the bus.

You are also encouraged to consider that an enlightened, civilized nation should neither encourage the abuse of animals, nor observe such sad legal categories as chattel, femme covert, etc.

The whole PURPOSE of such a category, which seems to have escaped your grasp, is to place on the owner the RESPONSABILITY to care and provide for chattels appropriately.  What constitutes a chattel evolves as society eveolves, but livestock is still shattel property.  You are encouraged to learn about what you are asserting positions on.

Nor should they debase the idea of rights by projecting them on dumb beasts.

Again, nothing about chattel confers rights on the chattel - it places responsabilities on the owner - a concept still in society.  You can't let your dog die of thirst, starve your kids, keep them out of school, slap the ol' lady around, kill your chicken for dinner slowly and painfully, etc.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

I think that what he is saying is that if you legally purchase a flag, you should be able to do as you wish with your own property, even if that means destroying it.  Agreed.  And, also agreed that if done as protest, it can also be protected free speech.

Exactly.
I own it, I can torch it.
On the free speech issue, flag-burning is a political statement, albeit an unpopular one.  Do we want the government deciding which political statements are legal and which aren't?

[The Rabbi]

There is no right to use public transportation.  Store owners do not have the right to discriminate based on race.

Really?  Then the local Nation of Islam chapter must allow me to join.  Then white supremacists cannot deny their black neighbors entrance into their back-yard barbecue.  Then you cannot deny neo-Nazis the right to sit in on your synagogue.  As long as they sit quietly, you cannot deny them their "rights," can you?  

Yes, I know, you will interpose this chimerical difference between businesses and homes.  Very nice.  Very arbitrary.  

Isn't public transportation publicly funded?  I'm not talking about a privately-run taxi company here.   I suppose the Post Office is allowed to refuse service to Asians, no?

I am not sure if you are joking or not.
On the off chance you aren't, your comments do not pertain to anything I have written.  The difference between businesses serving the public and private homes is anything but chimerical.  The difference between a business open to the public and a private club is anything but chimerical.  The difference between a business and a private house of worship is anything but chimerical.  Nothing arbitrary about it.

The air force is publicly funded too but I have no right to fly on military transport.

[The Rabbi]

Exactly.
I own it, I can torch it.
On the free speech issue, flag-burning is a political statement, albeit an unpopular one.  Do we want the government deciding which political statements are legal and which aren't?

No, I want the public expressing their will through elections deciding this.

[grampster]

Actually, what the Senate denied the people was the opportunity to exercise free speech by debating whether they wanted their state legislature to ratify a Constitutional amendment.  If the Senate would have passed the bill and President signed it, 2/3 of the states would have had to ratify it;  giving each and every person in those states the opportunity to decide whether they wanted to or not.  It would not have had any effect unless 2/3 of the states had ratified it.
 
The Senate actually stultified free speech in the interest of free speech. Is that a double neagative?   They are a group of egotistical, bloviating gas bags and we should go back to what the Constitution said about the Senate; that they be appointed by the legislatures of the several states.

The flag is something more than just personal property or chatel.  It represents an idea and an ongoing experiment that has superceded all the dealings of man in the past.  It is the personification, an emblem,  of that idea and experiment that enough folks have thought enough of to sacrifice life and limb so that idea and experiment may continue to evolve for the betterment of all.

I am rather ashamed of some of you who reduce the significance of that piece of cloth to the point you would spar about the efficacy of burning it as a statement of disagreement with some ancilliary stumble in our experiment that happens from time to time, and call it free speech.  (Frustrated non vulgar expletive deleted by grampster in the interest of politeness)

[Perd Hapley]

Richyoung

Please forgive me if my former posts were not quite satisfactory.  I was a bit rushed and may have confused some details of the bus segregation issue.  In fact I was addressing this comment.  

You will kindly note any number of people sent to prison for, for example, setting puppies on fire, etc.

Rights are not defined by laws.  Such a law is a violation of property rights, and as such is far worse than the death of a puppy.  If you are unaware of this, then you ought to learn about rights before "asserting."    

Don't think I was confusing the concept of chattel with the idea of animal rights.  I was simply anticipating the next argument.  I have enough subjects to study, and chattel is pretty far down on the list.  If it is as you describe, it conflicts with the idea of property rights, and is therefore wrong.

[Firethorn]

I agree, once I think about it the act of burning a flag is one of property rights.  You can burn a flag, a book, or a bra if you want to, as long as the owner agrees to it.  If the burner owns it himself, permission is assumed of course.  This is part of why I get amused at the occasional book burning still held, as they've usually bought the books from the store, thus increasing it's popularity and notority, and the book store simply orders more.

Now, burning it in public before a crowd while making speeches and waving signs does get into free speech.

Now, I may not agree to what flag burners are shouting, but I believe in their right to do it.

And grampster, there's plenty of other ways to start a constitutional amendment, if it was truly a big deal the other ways would have been started.

Personally, I feel that a ban on political flag burning doesn't belong in the constitution.  After all, there's hundreds of other ways to deface a flag without burning it.  Are we going to ban those as well?  One way I can think of, that's probably already been done is to smear it with dogsh*t.

It's not something to get too worried about.

[Perd Hapley]

I am not sure if you are joking or not.
On the off chance you aren't, your comments do not pertain to anything I have written.  The difference between businesses serving the public and private homes is anything but chimerical.  The difference between a business open to the public and a private club is anything but chimerical.  The difference between a business and a private house of worship is anything but chimerical.  Nothing arbitrary about it.

The air force is publicly funded too but I have no right to fly on military transport.

Joking?  I am spelling out the obvious implications of the fundamental Anglo-American concept of property rights, and you ask if I joke?  You, a bright and educated American?  My, to what a pretty pass we've come.  I know you don't agree with the standard model of rights, Rabbi, but you should know by our past discussions that I do.  Pertaining to rights, there is no difference between the above institutions.  

You have the same right to fly on military transport as anyone of another race.  The thing is, the military is not in the business of transporting civilians.

[The Rabbi]

Rights are not defined by laws.

Of course they are.  What else could define them?

You are clearly confusing rights with privelages, not to mention responsibilities, of which I see precious little discussion on this forum.