|
|
How Dare You
Since when is burning a flag a crime? Oh, yeah, it's not yet, at least until we get an Amendment to the constitution passed. Why are these people so anxious to make burning a flag a crime? I'm not familiar with the pro arguments, but I think it boils down to:
Burning a flag disrespects America.
Burning a flag is desecration of the flag.
Passing the amendment will show support for the troops overseas.
So what? Nobody but nutjobs want to burn the flag anyway.
It's not speech, it's an action, and so it's not protected under the first amendment anyway.
First, burning a flag disrespects America. This I agree with. In fact, I believe that's the whole point of burning a flag. It's a kind of symbolic bird-flipping to an entire country, their government and their culture. So, we're in agreement there.
So, what this argument says is, dissing America is bad, and should be punishable by law. And, see, that's where I think this argument falls flat. Let's take a look back in history and see if we can dig up some other laws that deal with dissing America. Hmmmm. Oh, here's one: The Sedition Act of 1798.
Under the Sedition Act, it was illegal to "write, print, utter, or publish" anything that criticized the president or Congress. This was, naturally, passed for reasons relating to national security, but it's interesting to note that they were opposed by none other than founding fathers Thomas Jefferson and James Madisom. Historically speaking, it's generally accepted that (a) despite claims to the contrary (national security, etc.), these were primarily a political vehicle for the Federalists to maintain control of the government and squelch the up-and-coming Democratic-Republican party, and (b) they clearly violated the letter and intention of the First Amendment (even though there were never actually ruled on by the courts).
Yes, a mere 22 years into it, the government had already decided that, regardless of the First Amendment, it was tired of the rabble "dissing" it, and was going to do something about it. Fortunately, that's why we have the constitution in the first place, and better heads prevailed.
But that's really what this new amendment is seeking to do. It's trying to make the dissing of America into a crime. So, if burning a flag to thumb your nose at America is a crime, why isn't yelling harsh slogans? Or carrying placards? Or printing nasty editorials? Or wondering aloud in your living room? What about the President? Doesn't he represent America? We can't have people running around our own country willy-nilly, shouting horrible things about him. People might get the wrong idea! What about his policies? What about the vice-president or congress? Or the army? Or the police?
I guess the point here is, there's no crime in disrespecting America. In fact, that's really one of the most beautiful things about us, that makes us so different than Red China or Cuba or the old Soviet state. We are aloud to express our displeasure with the current system as loud and brash as we see fit.
The American flag is a symbol that represents the ability to burn the American flag in anger.
The second one is weirder, in that 'desecrate' makes certain assumptions. Desecration implies by its very name a sort of sacredness, such that befouling it is somehow profaning it. That by its very nature, it's somehow worse to burn a flag than it is to burn a book, a bra or a draft card.
I'm all about freedom and democracy. And I'm all about America, because America, even with its checkered history, its empirial leanings and its partisan politics, is still the best example of how people can (mostly) live together and get on with their lives without the government being a major part of everyday living. So, we all agree, America is good.
The problem I see with the word 'desecration' is that there is some sort of spiritual attachment to America itself, the country and/or government, regardless of the ideals it stands for. It's often amazing to me that people who claim to love this country with all its freedom and democracy get so crazy annoyed when all this stupid freedom gets in the way of them molding America into what they want it to be.
If you read America: The Book, there's a joke in there about how the more 'democratic' names are attached to a country, the higher the totalitarianism reigns. And they use, I think, Congo as an example. It starts out as 'Congo', then becomes the 'Republic of Congo', then 'The People's Republic of Congo' and finally, 'The People's Democratic Republic of Congo', which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what it actually is.
So, I'm all for America, but mostly I'm for freedom and democracy. If America stops being the best place for freedom and democracy, then we've got a problem, and at that point, I'm all for doing something else. America itself isn't the goal, it's the means to the goal. America isn't a wonderful country because God put it here and made it so. It's a wonderful country because it actually works to practice what it preaches (or, at least it tries to), and because the principles on which it was founded have withstood several attacks from many fronts.
So, stop trying to enforce what America stands for by taking away everything it stands for. It's totalitarian (Yes, I think most totalitarian governments ban flag-burning), and really, a little annoying.
The other argument I have against both 1 and 2, is that we need to stop legislating against what we consider "bad behavior". There's no real crime going on when someone burns a flag (unless it's not theirs, but we've got laws for that already). It's just someone doing something we don't like.
Now, if we're going to legislate against something we don't like, why don't we start with, oh, telemarketers. (Oh yeah, first amendment.) Or maybe mimes. Or reality shows. What about cutting in line? Or not shutting up in a movie theatre? Or idiots with head-set cell phones talking to themselves in the grocery store? Or rain on a Sunday?
If we're going to pass laws against things we don't like, there's plenty of other stuff that happens every day that we could legislate, with bipartisan support and support from the American people. But that's not how it works. It's not a crime to be annoying, and when you burn a flag, that's all you are: annoying. There's no victim, just an action. (They can't even use that old fallback, "What about the children?")
"But it's wrong!" you say. Well, let's see what happened last time we passed an amendment to the constitution to handle something somebody saw as a real problem, something that was 'wrong' with the country. Let's see... Oh yeah, here it is: Prohibition.
That really worked out, didn't it? And really, drinking is a problem. It causes accidents and violence. I mean, there are real issues surrounding alcohol. But it turned out that people didn't give a rats ass what the moral folk in our government thought was 'good for them'. They wanted the freedom to get drunk, so they went ahead and did it anyway.
Now, I'm not suggesting that folks will gather in secret clubs to sit around and burn flags, because that's clearly not happening. But the point is the same. Our government isn't very good at mandating what's proper. And it shouldn't be, that's not its job. The people will figure out what's proper and what isn't.
Which of course brings up another point. Most of the flag burnings going on today are in the Middle East. They love a good flag-roast. I'm pretty sure, even with all our bombs, a flag-burning amendment wouldn't slow down that party.
So, who's burning flags over here? Where's the epidemic? Why is this so important?
They aren't, and it isn't. What we have here is a solution looking for a problem. Folks are trying to make a statement by amending the Constitution, the blueprint of our country, to send a message.
Oddly enough, this to me is probably more sacriligious than burning an actual flag. Of the two ways to get attention and get your message across, I'll take the one that doesn't have potential unforeseen political and legal side-effects that might affect generations to come. If you want to be heard, rent a billboard in Times Square or stand on the capitol steps and hand out leaflets. But, dammit, leave my Constitution alone.
As far as showing support for the troops overseas, how exactly is passing an amendment that abridges their rights to free speech and anti-war actions doing that? Isn't that exactly what they are fighting for?
Really, if you are trying to show support for the troops, you don't need to screw around with the Constitution. Try reinstating (or even increasing) some of their benefits. Stop cutting veterans benefits. Try helping out the families that are trying to subsist on a single income while their working National Guard father or mother is overseas fighting for your right to pass idiotic laws. Stop threatening to close schools and day cares on military bases in order to reduce expenses.
That seems like a fine place to start with showing support for our troops. And maybe some magnetic ribbons.
"Well, Bucko, I'm sorry you can't walk, can't get the medicine you need and you're running low on Hot Pockets, but at least Libby can't burn flags any more. So, you got something to be proud of. Go USA!"
Let's see, where are we. Oh, yes, the nutjobs.
Yeah, I agree. I mean, their probably not nutjobs, but they are clearly seeking attention for something or other, and the best way to deal with that is to just ignore it. In fact, when's the last time you heard of a flag-burning in the states? I think only one happened last year, and there may have been a smattering when we actually hit the shores of Iraq in 2003. But it's hardly an epidemic, and, while I'm sure most people say, "No, I don't like it when people burn flags," I don't think it's on the top of their list of worries. (Maybe if the flag-burners were gay or something...)
So, what the heck. Let them ban flag-burning, because, who does it really hurt?
Well, first, the amendment, as proposed, is stupid and full of holes. It uses really vague words like, well, like 'desecrate', which don't really have a formal legal definition. (If I stitch a flag patch onto my uniform, is that desecration? I've speared it with holes...) And loose laws mean lots of opportunities for people to misuse them and arrest people for 'flag desecration' when really they were just being annoying.
And second, it's the beginning of a slippery slope. I won't draw out the picture, because it always sounds ultra-paranoid and ends up with Nazis and stuff, but it's still something to be conscious of. You let someone do something small, take away a bit of your rights, and they slowly chip away until they get to something you do care about, like bitching about the President (hey, for all you pro-Bushies, remember 5 years ago, Clinton was President) or writing government-critical blogs or publishing non-state-sponsored newspapers.
So, it's better to raise the issue and stop it now, even if it's only nutjobs that care.
As for whether it's free 'speech' versus action, all I can say is, there's precedent for it. Donations to political causes and parties is protected by the first amendment as 'free speech' or more broadly, freedom of expression, even though this is clearly an 'action'. And, more recently, telemarketers are still allowed to call you, and one of their main arguments is the First Amendment right to free speech, even though their particular means of speech includes the despicable action of dialing your number on their telephone.
If we start disallowing 'actions' while still allowing free speech, then what prevents us from saying, "You can print a cartoon criticizing the US, you just can't draw one." This circumnavigates the 'freedom of press' issue, but it still prevents you from expressing yourself on matters that are important to you.
This hasn't been explicitly spelled out, but the courts have definitely ruled this way in the past. And I think it makes sense and is within the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter.
Finally, isn't there something better we can concentrate on? I mean, there are so many things that need our attention right now, including the economy, the wars and the perennials like health care, the jobless, the homeless, the working poor, our schools, the environment, etc. Is flag-burning really such a hot national issue that we need to waste our time and money even talking about it, let alone trying to pass laws and alter the Constitution for it? I think not.
|
|
|
|
Post a Comment
<< Home