That I hope that Mitch McConnell is the next Senate majority leader.

I revere the American flag as a symbol of freedom. But behind it is something larger—the Constitution. The First Amendment, which protects our freedom of speech, is the most precious part of the Bill of Rights. As disgusting as the ideas expressed by those who would burn the flag are, they remain protected by the First Amendment.

Our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment because they believed that, even with all the excesses and offenses that freedom of speech would undoubtedly allow, truth and reason would triumph in the end. And they believed the answer to offensive speech was not to regulate it, but to counter it with more speech.

No act of speech is so obnoxious that it merits tampering with our First Amendment. Our Constitution, and our country, is stronger than that.

Weakening our First Amendment could also set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the Bill of Rights. If we successfully carve out an exception to one basic freedom, perhaps those who seek to curtail our Second Amendment rights—the right to bear arms—will carve out another. Or the right to own private property, as expressed in the Fifth Amendment, could come under assault.

We also must realize that even a constitutional amendment will not instill proper respect for the flag in any scoundrel who would burn it. On the contrary, by invoking our sacred constitutional amendment process, we would give such a person just what he seeks: attention. Why tamper with the First Amendment to solve a problem that thankfully is not widespread?

Flag burning is an abominable act. We’re lucky to live in a country where the overwhelming majority of people not only reject it, but honor the American flag and the freedoms it stands for. These freedoms are America’s source of strength.

Not to mention, of course, the steadfast opposition to the true anti-First-Amendment types, particularly McCain and Feingold. There are too few members of either house of Congress who actually believe in free speech and the First Amendment.

i agree.
it seems like a pretty analagous issue to the cartoons depicting mohammed, in that both are said to be insults to things people hold sacred. except most people think their religion is more sacred than their country. sacred is maybe not the right word.

you shouldnt insult these things, but you should have the right to.

mccain-feingold is problematic, but so is no reform.

i dont like the implications of money=free speech. i see the logic, and i am tempted to agree, but i dont like the implications.

i like the idea of public financed elections. it avoids the problem of regulation.

Right vote, wrong reason. (And, like you, I like McConnell.)

I think it's silly to argue against flag burning on free speech grounds. The issue to me is, clearly, one of property rights. If I own a flag, it is MINE. I should be able to burn it, shred it, or wipe up after my puppy with it.

(All those actions would be reprehensible and stupid and wrong, but they should not be illegal. A distinction which seems to have vanished in the last 100 years. Sigh.)

Of course, if I cut down someone else's flag and burn THAT, then I should be liable for trespass and damages and whatever else a smart lawyer can dream up. But, again, that's for violating property rights, not "free speech."

I dunno - personally I think that certain types of speech should be forbidden. If people hear the same line over and over again they eventually beleive it. I think you could make a case to outlaw hate speech - Jews deserve to die, Infidels should be raped, etc. I think this kind of thing should be prosecuted for the social extortion that it is.

That said, I don't think burning flags is quite in the same camp. (Although I would support a law that makes it not illegal for any Armed forces member or veteran to beat said burner to a bloody pulp - there's my hate speech for today...)

Perhaps McConnel needs to switch parties.

There is a difference between a flag and a standard.

Burn a Flag? I will grit my teeth and remain silent. Tarnish a standard? and I will rip the through from the first person who thinks it's a valid form of speach.

Theres a difference.

If you want to go to Flags R' Us, buy a flag and then drive your car go down to the local we hate "W" meeting and burn that flag, you should have that right

IMHO, It's not a symbol of the U.S. or anything else until it goes up a pole and it gets saluted or at least looked at and recognized as our flag.

If you come to my house and take down MY flag, or go to the court house and take down the COUNTIES flag, it's theft and destruction of private property. You should be charged, convicted, and kicked in your @ss for the theft and vandalism! Treat it just like any other theft or act of vandallism, use the laws we have.

btw, only 3 republicans voted against the ban. glad to see you all are saner than your party.

3 republicans voted against the ban. glad to see you all are saner than your party.

What mental defect causes you to think I am now, or have ever been, a Republican?

Link/post is broken on IE...

Speaking of symbolism. What if a given stars&stripes has "Made in China" sticker on it? Hoist it, or "put it away"? I'm torn.

I dunno - personally I think that certain types of speech should be forbidden. If people hear the same line over and over again they eventually beleive it. I think you could make a case to outlaw hate speech - Jews deserve to die, Infidels should be raped, etc. I think this kind of thing should be prosecuted for the social extortion that it is.

If someone is advocating crime, whether it be against an ethnic group or not, then at least in the US, that is prosecutable. I imagine it's even harsher in Europe which doesn't have the US's protections on free speech. If someone slanders or libels particular people, that can be dealth with in court. Otherwise, at least in the US, it's their right.

I think most Americans feel the same way I do when they see a group or individual burn the flag..."What an "A" hole. So when your enemy starts to make an "A" holes out of themselves, get out of the way.

Of course Seantor McConnell ignores the many limits and penalties that *already* exist on freedom of speech - limits that create thoughtcrime. As Karl points out "If someone is advocating crime, whether it be against an ethnic group or not, then at least in the US, that is prosecutable".

What mental defect causes you to think I am now, or have ever been, a Republican?
Posted by Rand Simberg at June 28, 2006 05:30 AM

you may label yourself whatever you would like. i dont mind.

you may label yourself whatever you would like. i dont mind.

I have no interest in labeling myself. Labels are for simpletons unable to comprehend, or argue complex issues. Like, apparently, you.

that is also fine with me. i really dont care. btw, just so you can keep the grammatical high ground, "Like, apparently, you." is a sentence fragment (unless "like" is your verb, with an implied subject, but i doubt it cause i know you dont like me)

"btw, only 3 republicans voted against the ban. glad to see you all are saner than your party."

Too bad you Kossacks can't claim the same and that's saying something!

no, i already indicated i agreed the ban was a bad idea. i'm also saner than the republican party. i dont read kos (i am not a kossack), but i believe he is also saner than the republican party.