Freedom to Desecrate
The Anti-Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment (S.J. RES 12) failed by one vote in the U.S. Senate one week before Independence Day.
I remember after 9/11 people displayed U.S. flags everywhere. Flags were mounted in the beds of trucks in defiant response to the WTC/Pentagon attacks. I was heartened to see the nation rally together and express their patriotism.
Two weeks later, those same flags were badly tattered. The flags, which should have been disposed of and replaced, were making a mockery of their intended patriotic gesture.
Do the senators who voted for S.J. RES 12 want to punish this form of flag desecration? No, they don't. Nor do I. This is about the political speech behind the act; not the act itself. Those who disagree with desecrating the flag don't oppose to American Legion flag burnings meant to dispose of the flag in a dignified manner. They don't want to jail Johnny Redneck for displaying a tattered flag in the back of their truck. They do want to punish those who burn the flag as a political statement. This should make it obvious that the intention of such legislation is to squelch political expression.
In 1984 in the Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson, the majority opinion stated, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
I find support for a Constitutional Amendment that mocks the Bill of Rights offensive and disagreeable.
I remember after 9/11 people displayed U.S. flags everywhere. Flags were mounted in the beds of trucks in defiant response to the WTC/Pentagon attacks. I was heartened to see the nation rally together and express their patriotism.
Two weeks later, those same flags were badly tattered. The flags, which should have been disposed of and replaced, were making a mockery of their intended patriotic gesture.
Do the senators who voted for S.J. RES 12 want to punish this form of flag desecration? No, they don't. Nor do I. This is about the political speech behind the act; not the act itself. Those who disagree with desecrating the flag don't oppose to American Legion flag burnings meant to dispose of the flag in a dignified manner. They don't want to jail Johnny Redneck for displaying a tattered flag in the back of their truck. They do want to punish those who burn the flag as a political statement. This should make it obvious that the intention of such legislation is to squelch political expression.
In 1984 in the Supreme Court case, Texas v. Johnson, the majority opinion stated, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
I find support for a Constitutional Amendment that mocks the Bill of Rights offensive and disagreeable.
posted by Brian Jones | 11:43 AM
|
0 comments
