Flag Desecration Bill
 

What does everyone think? Is it a good thing, or a waste of time?

Personally I think it's a waste of time. I don't think we should be BANNING people from showing their displeasure with the Government or this country. We may not like it but the freedoms that flag represents are to make statements like that. Personally I look down with disgust at any american who would desecrate the flag in any way. Be it letting it droop unceremonious, leave it fly and tatter hanging from your car etc... But just like, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I have to defend that right.

Secondly, if you agree with the ban on flag desecration, should it be implemented retroactively? :cool:
http://www.patridiots.com/image/bushsignsflag.gif
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/APEC...hotos/flag.jpg
See, I can be bi-partisan.

Can you supply a link to the bill itself? I'm not clear on its details but they are unlikely to persuade me that it is appropriate.

My reasons? Not so much because I think people have a right to desecrate the flag by burning, mutilating, urinating, etc on it but that many people "desecrate" it without intent. As you've noted there are many ways to "desecrate" it. Signing it, improper display, not lighting it at night, not replacing it when worn, wearing it in the form of a t-shirt, bikini, jeans, or other type of clothing, etc, etc, etc. We don't need legislation for it.

Personally seeing an american flag doesn't offend me in any way so its hard for me to really care about this. I guess I'm against this bill just because I see it more as another thing people aren't allowed to do in this country now (if passed).

I think those stupid ribbon magnets on cars is desceretating the flag. God, they're annoying.

So yeah, this bill is stupid and a complete waste of time.

The bill itself? Still looking. But here are some news stories on it.
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=...&u_sid=1202673

http://springfield.news-leader.com/o...st-174571.html

This is a very good, critical, analysis of this bill
http://www.cincypost.com/2004/09/14/editb091404.html

Justice Antonin Scalia [There is not]"a flag exception for the First Amendment."

To me, the flag is just a piece of cloth. Maybe the principles behind the flag (whatever they are) are significant, but the flag is most certainly not their physical manifestation. Like it or not, it is just a piece of cloth with a bunch of stars and stripes. If you think you're making a statement by burning it, then go ahead (unless it's a fire hazard). But don't think you're going to change anyone's mind about America one way or another by doing so.

No, this bill should not be passed.

Funny, the GOP says they want smaller government but they want to make ignorant laws taking away more freedoms.

I personally don't care what someone does to the flag if the purpose is to make a statement. That is their right and statements are needed at times to make our government take notice and do their jobs.

However, what pisses me off are the people after 9/11 who believe having a flag no matter what condition in their car window is patriotic. Or people who leave flags on their porches or poles during rainstorms, or touching some plant because they don't garden well.

To me that is showing far more disrespect to the flag than someone burning it for a cause they feel deeply over.

As for patches or t-shirts I don't care because those are not flags but replicas of such and hey, if I could find a flag patch and had a holey pair of jeans I might put one on.

As for signing a flag (ala the pics above), I'd be fucking honored to have a presidential signature on a flag, no matter what president. That would be framed and hung in my home. To me that is a symbol of respect for country and the office of the president. You cannot seperate the office from the flag so why should a signature on the flag be different.

That only applies to capitalism and weapons. :D

I don't agree with that. It is specifically written in the flag ettiquet rules that no writing be on the flag.

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

Of any nature. Presidents are just men. They are not above a rule like this. The flag is a symbol for the nation that shouldn't be used in such a manner. Get a pic of the Preznit with his autograph, but not on our national symbol.

Also: (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.

flag patch on jeans a no-no.

These articles are not LAWS, but they are the proper manner of etiquet that one should follow. To do otherwise shows disrespect for what it stands for IMO. And Presidents above all should be versed in this and follow it.

Super,

I agree with a lot of what you say, but our opinions differ here. I understand the ettiquette but like I said a president signed flag would mean something to me personally. As for drapery and bed sheets and such, I've seen half flag material or overlapping flag material and while I find it tacky, it may be a person's way of being patriotic and who am I to say differently.

To me the only disrespect of the flag is not taking care of it.

a friend of mine put it nicely in an article. If you cannot harm a flag, you take away its fundamental meaning. It is cloth, it has colors, it is material. When you put meaning behind it, you must be willing to put meaning behind the actions performed on that flag. We put freedom, liberty, trust, love, whatever behind the flag, we must be willing to accept that the freedom to have and wave the flag is just the same as the freedom to show displeasure at the gov't by burning the flag. it is not something i personally would do, but i also would not stop someone from doing it.

Soooo, legislation to restrict actions against that flag undermines the very meaning of the flag and makes it a worthless piece of cloth.

as a russian man and an american were talking, the american bragged about his freedoms. He said he could stand in front of the whitehouse and scream out the GWBUSH was a moron. The russian said his country was free too, He coudl stand in front of hte kremlin and scream that GWBUSH was a moron as well...

not to mention, it is a HUGE waste of lawmakers time at a time when there is no time :)

Alsoooo...i predict that the SECOND this passes, there will be people burning flags all over in protest of the law.

My personal opinion is that part of the freedom the flag stands for is the right to desecrate it (provided you paid for it, of course).

Isn't there some clause in the Constitution stating that Congress cannot make a law that can be enforced ex post facto/retroactively?

retro active law is fundamentally illegal.

And burning a flag is an expression of free speech.

As a gesture I find it fairly empty and silly, but if someone wants to deface or burn a flag, as long as they dont harm anyone else, as far as I am concerned its their own business.

If someone wanted to burn a Union Jack and I saw them I wouldnt care less, but I am not very patriotic (in fact, a lot of times I am kind of unpatriotic.. I nearly always want English sports teams to lose, I dont know, ever since I was a child I always have)

As said above, retroactive laws are unconstitutional.

Burning a flag, no matter how disrespectful, is protected by our right of free speech.

Besides, burning of a flag is a sign of higher respect than flying tattered ass flags for years at a time without taking it down. It's a higher form of respect than flying a flag that's too large for their tiny garden poles and it dragging in the mud. It's a higher form of respect than a LOT of thing I've seen people do because of ignorance even if they intend well. So it doesnt bother me all that much.

Our flag is an important symbol and there is no way that I would agree with a law or constitutional amendment to bar the burning/desecration of it.

Hey, feel free to burn this flag, cause you sure as shit can't destroy what it represents.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

With so many more important things to care about, it would be criminal for our legislators to waste time on this.

heh, the retroactivity was just a joke done to point out that even our elected officials have been known to desecrate the flag.

Yet not criminal to spend millions of taxpayers dollars to try to make an amendmant defining marriage?

Not saying you said that just pointing out how ridiculous and how Washington doesn't seem to care what laws they pass, as long as they can define how we live our lives.

I'd never support a law that prevents flag desecration.

I would support one that would make beating up a flag desecrator a $50 fine ;)

Taking away freedoms to protect the symbol of freedoms doesn't really make sense to me. Flag desecration will remain an allowed form of speech.

Flag etiquette does matter to me - living on military bases with military culture as a kid really ingrained a lot of that stuff. It does bother me to see the flag demeaned, as it stands for some very noble ideas. In fact, I make a point to observe protocal myself. However, I think of flag protocals as being like table manners. I display my good manners and leave others to themselves. When someone is breaking etiquette, I usually assume that they are either ignorant of good manners or don't care enough to pay attention to their actions. Either one puts you in the same category with me...

Damn skippy. It is to me, an open and shut case. It's free speech, simple as that.