Flag Burning Amendment Fails
66-34... pretty damn close
My main point is that something like burning the flag should never be banned. Though you and I may find it reprehensible, it is necessary for open and robust discourse. Open and robust discourse is the exact purpose of the First Amendment. Also, if you look at the history of what we call "free" speech (I use quotations b/c much speech is not free), you'll see that there exists a hierarchy of speech and the protection of that speech correlates to where it falls in that hierarchy.
Flag burning is considered "political speech." Political speech is the MOST protected form of speech. So if this were a Supreme Court decision (and it was in 1984) the Supreme Court would show deference to the speech. The thought is that you err on the side of letting too much in, rather than censoring too much out. This thought process is indicative of Oliver Wendell Holme's "marketplace of ideas" theory. Which in its most crude form, basically says, throw everything out there and let society deal with it. The better the idea, the more reverence society will pay it; thus it will rise to the top. The worse the idea, the quicker it will sink. It's basically derivative of capitalist thought but generally tends to work for speech.
So in the end, I say all this only to say that the ability to express your political views in the manner you see fit (so long as it does not infringe on other's rights) is one of the proudest traditions this country possesses. To take that away just because you find the action reprehensible is antithetical to American Constitutional thought/ideology. You cannot practice viewpoint discrimination when concerned with the methodology someone chooses to espouse their views.
HOWEVER, if Congress is able to pass the amendment and get it ratified by 38 of the 50 states, so be it. The voice of the people has spoken and that is exactly how you're supposed to do it Constitutionally. I would back that.
2 comments:
hey, happy belated birthday!
Question for you on this, if one looks into proper flag protocol, there's a few different views. Currently, there is no federal provision for punishment. However, there is basis for punishment, depending on who is interpreting the law. http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html
I know that isn't going to hyperlink, which is obnoxious, but cut and paste as you will. The only thing to add is that the laws dealing with the flag say that the federal gov't has to leave what is done to the flag to the states.
With all that said, let me get to the question. You stated you disagreed with flag burning, but then stated it as a "political speech". I have to ask, how is an action a manner of speaking? I know, actions speak louder than words. Body Language. Expressions on one's face explaining more of what they think than anything they could say. I understand all of that as metaphysical concepts. However, the Constitution specifically lays out "Freedom of Speech and the Press" (I know, I cut three others there, but we know this), and in the manner in which it is stated, these are verbal and written freedoms, not action freedoms.
Now, again, I understand that what I think really won't sway the Supreme Court, but I can't help but wonder about what we have turned "Free Speech" into. If you remember a few years ago, they even included Strippers and what they do with their bodies as "freedom of speech". Again, looking at the original document, it can be considered vague and open, but at the same time you can't miss the fact that they seem to be narrowing the ideas to verbal and written, at least in my opinion. I was just wondering that as opposed to your statement that it is "speech" vs. action.
Post a Comment