Flag Burning
Is it more important to protect the icons
of our country, or to ensure the right
to extremely offensive expressions?
The issue of flag burning asks America just
that question: Should America
tolerate, or condemn? Flag burning does seem to be
the ultimate act of
symbolic protest used to express dissension against the
American
Government. There is simply no questioning the fact that flag burning
offends
people, but the controversy of flag burning tests the dominion of
the
First Amendment to the Constitution. The First Amendment states very
simply,
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of
the
press." (Harvin ) It is widely debatable whether or not the American
flag
is an object that requires the refuge of legislation. History of the
Flag The
American flag played no significant role in American life until
the Civil War.
It was displayed only on federal government buildings,
forts, and American ships
at sea. It would have been unthinkable to fly an
American flag at a private home
or public school. It simply was not done.
Only the outbreak of the Civil War
made the American Flag transform into an
object of public adoration. The flag
suddenly started appearing everywhere
from colleges, hotels, stores, to private
homes. But the flag's growing
popularity was not accompanied at first by any
sense that is should be
regarded as a sacred object or vestige( Goldstein).
History of Flag
Burning The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right to
desecrate an
American flag. However, various legislatures have tried numerous
times to
criminalize the act of flag burning. Despite their efforts, flag
burning is
still legal, at least for the time being. Still, the legal future of
flag
burning is very much in question. Although it does not deal specifically
with
flag desecration, the 1931 Supreme Court case of Stromberg v. California
was
the first to test the extent of the First Amendment as it applies
to
displaying the flag. Stromberg was arrested, charged, and convicted
for
displaying a red flag. The Supreme Court set the precedent and ruled
that
because similar to flag burning, the flag is being used in an expressive
manner
(Goldstein). The first epidemic of flag desecration in American
history occurred
during the late Sixties and early Seventies. Americans were
becoming more and
more disgusted with the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. This
era is commonly known
for its radical political activism. Setting the
American flag ablaze was a
common way for protesters to decry the Vietnam
conflict (Mullins). Protesters
soon realized that flag burning was an
extremely effective way to express many
of their anti-American views. The
second Supreme Court case that dealt with
using the flag in an expressive
manner occurred with the 1974 case of Spence v.
Washington. This case was
very similar to the earlier case of Stromberg v.
California. The case
involved a protester who was arrested and convicted for
displaying an
American flag with an attached peace sign. Just the same as the
Stromberg
case, the conviction was overturned and deemed unconstitutional
because the
action was expressive (Goldstein). The earlier Spence and Stromberg
cases
both deal with the expressive use of the American flag, but no flag
burning
itself The first and most notable Supreme Court case to tackle
the
controversy of flag burning itself was the case of Texas v. Johnson. In
1984,
Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a rally dubbed the 'Republican
War Chest
Tour,' which protested U.S. foreign policy. The demonstration
climaxed as
protesters chanted and Johnson doused the American flag with
kerosene and set it
on fire (Harvin). This was perhaps the most famous flag
ever burned in U.S.
history. Johnson was arrested and charged with violating
the Texas statue 42.09
Desecration of a Venerated Object. The law states
in part, "A person
commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly
defaces.. . a state or
national flag." Johnson was fined $2,000 and was
sentenced to one year in
state prison (Goldstein). Johnson appealed the
decision all the way to the U.S.
Supreme Court. Five years later, in
1989, the Supreme Court overturned the
conviction by the narrowest of
margins, five to four. The ruling stated that
"free speech does not end at
the spoken or written word." (Goldstein).
After the controversial ruling
in Texas v. Johnson, United States lawmakers
wasted little time in passing
the Federal Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Flag
Protection Act was very
similar to the earlier unconstitutional Texas statue.
The only difference
was that the federal law applied specifically to the
American flag, and
described a much broader range of offenses (Goldstein). The
Flag
Protection Act met its first constitutional challenge very quickly.
The
1990 Supreme Court case of United States v. Eichman brought the issue
to the
forefront once again. The government's main arguments in favor of the
Flag
Protection Act was that it did not limit the act of flag desecration
based
specifically on its expressive content, and that the government has an
interest
in preserving the physical well-being of the flag. The Supreme Court
did not
agree and ultimately found the Flag Protection Act unconstitutional,
The court
disregarded the U.S. government's argument and ruled nevertheless
that the
underlying intent of the government was to suppress free speech
(Goldstein). In
1990 Doris Lessin, a leader of the Revolutionary
Communist Party, was arrested
after burning a flag and yelling insults at
bystanders during an anti-America
demonstration. Violence subsequently
followed and Lessin was charged with
aggravated disorderly conduct. She was
later charged with a more severe felony,
inciting to violence, and ultimately
was convicted. The fact Lessin was jailed
for flag burning points to a
loophole in the current law. Currently, flag
desecration can be illegal under
some circumstances (Cozic). Today, flag burning
which is communicative in
nature is still constitutional. Because the Supreme
Court has gained a
liberal seat since the Johnson and Eichman rulings, it does
not appear that
the Supreme Court will change the constitutionality of flag
desecration any
time soon. Throughout the 1990's, Washington politicians have
tried
repeatedly to circumvent the issue of constitutionality by pushing a
proposed
flag desecration amendment to amend the constitution itself. Several
versions
of the amendment have easily passed in the House of Representatives,
only to
fail or stall in the Senate. An overwhelming majority of senators
and
representatives have announced their support for the bill, however other
issues
have pushed the proposal to the wayside. Amending the constitution is
a
difficult and lengthy process, and over 99% of proposed amendments fail
(Fullwood).
Currently, the proposed amendment was stalled in the Senate,
and did not clear
the Senate in 1998. The issue of flag burning and
desecration is one of the most
controversial tests of the right to free
speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly ruled in favor of the
constitutionality of flag burning, but
politicians have tried endlessly to
change that. One thing seems certain. The
only way that flag burning will
become illegal is through an amendment to the
Constitution. To Burn The
issue of flag burning has polarized American politics
for over a decade.
There is little middle ground with this issue. Americans are
generally either
for or against the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment.
Opponents of the
proposed Flag Desecration Amendment are quite outspoken. The
opponents argue
that proposal would be the first to set limitations on the
First
Amendment. Furthermore, they argue that the entire thinking of the
proposed
amendment is backwards because the proposal places more value in the
icon of
freedom, than in freedom itself (Smolla 1989). Not to Burn It could
reasonably
be predicted that the proposed amendment would divide Americans
directly at
political party lines, this is not the case. The Republican Party
proudly
sponsors the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment and it is no
surprise that
almost every Republican in Congress has proclaimed their
support for the
proposed amendment (Citizen's Flag Alliance). The Republican
Party has always
been synonymous with limited interpretation of the First
Amendment and a push
for more laws in recent American politics. The more
surprising reality is that
many moderate Democrats have crossed party lines
and announced their support for
the proposed amendment (Citizen's Flag
Alliance). The main opposition to the
proposed amendment comes from the
liberal Democrats and the Libertarians. And
where does the American public
stand? Various polls indicate that 70%-80% are in
favor of the proposed
amendment (Citizen's Flag Alliance). However, when
informed as to the first
Amendment implications of such an amendment, poll show
that American opinions
are more swayed and split their opinions at nearly 50% (Fullwood).
The
main argument for the Flag Desecration Amendment is that the American flag
is
not just another piece of cloth (Citizen's Flag Alliance). The flag
is
proclaimed by supporters to be a venerated object worthy of legal
protection.
Los Angeles Dodgers general manager Tommy Lasorda is one of
the foremost
activists in favor of the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment.
Lasorda testified
that the Senate can protect an honored symbol that ties
every American together,
while preserving out 1st Amendment rights, and most
supporters of the proposal,
disagree with the liberal decision of the Supreme
Court that protect flag
burning as free speech (Lacy). Supporters of the
proposed Flag Desecration
Amendment are also a widespread majority in the
every facet of the U.S.
Forty-nine of the fifty states legislatures have
officially urged congress to
pass the proposed amendment. About three of
every four U.S. representatives
support the measure, and so do about two of
every three U.S. Senators.
Supporters of the proposal are also four of
every five U.S. citizens. Because
they form a widespread majority, the
supporters believe that the people 's voice
should be heard and the proposed
amendment should be ratified (Citizen's Flag
Alliance). Flag burning has
never been a significant tool for political change
in America (SmoIIa 1990).
At its best, it has been an act used by a few radicals
to gain attention. At
its worst it could be a major threat to the fabric of
America. As every
flag is burned, so is the memory of every American who died in
its service.
Supporters of the proposed amendment, who are the majority, don'
think that
it's much to ask of citizens not to bum a flag. After all, aren't
there a
thousand other ways to express ones views? Both sides of the debate feel
very
strongly about their cause. That is just what makes America a free
country.
Everyone has been allowed to express his or her opinion under
the First
Amendment. Americans have always expressed their opinions,
whether it's by word
or by mouth, on television or in newspapers, on T-shirts
or bumper stickers, or
even by burning the flag. My Conclusion What do
countries like China, North
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, and Cuba all have
in common? If one answered that
all these countries are flagrant violators of
human rights, that would be
correct. If one answered that all these countries
have been models of oppressive
and totalitarian governments, that too, would
be correct. What is lesser known
is that all these countries also have laws
against flag burning (Cozic). If
American politicians have their way, add
the United States of America to that
list Politicians don't care that the
Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the
constitutionality of flag burning,
although it is nonverbal. The Supreme Court
has clearly ruled that flag
desecration is a form of communicative speech. Free
speech has never ended
with the spoken word. Free speech is very clearly
protected by the First
Amendment (Rehnquist). The fact that the
constitutionality issue had already
been decided seemed to anger the
power-hungry Washington bureaucrats. Shortly
after the Supreme Court made it's
first ruling in favor of flag burning,
Congress passed the Flag Protection Act
into law. Much the same, the Flag
Protection Act was almost immediately deemed
unconstitutional. But even that
hasn't stopped Congress almost a decade later.
The Flag Desecration
Amendment has been quietly creeping its way through the
U.S. legislature
unbeknownst to the majority of the American public. The
amendment has been
led by the right-wing conservative, Orrin Hatch of Utah (Fullwood).
Hatch
and other politicians are intent on stripping Americans of any rights
they
still have left. These politicians seem hell-bent on scrapping the
values that
have built the United States of America. They are intent of
pulling a big, fat,
asterisk next to the First Amendment (Cozic). The
clockwork of the Constitution
should not be toyed with for such an
insignificant cause. Americans should
remember that governments do not have
to take freedom away from citizens all at
once. Nazi Germany started very
slowly taking away people's freedom in the
thirties. Less than a decade
later, political opposition was quashed with
legislation, intimidation, and
violence. The ultimate results and the speed at
which rights are stripped may
not be the same in America, but the trends may end
up being very similar.
American lawmakers sometimes are very ignorant and have a
bad habit of
imposing laws against actions that they personally dislike
without
considering the underlying implication. Flag burning is undoubtedly
a
contemptuous act against the country. The majority of Americans is at
least
mildly patriotic and would probably be sickened to witness Old Glory so
horribly
violated. Because this is the case lawmakers feel it is their moral
duty to
intervene and criminalize the act. The logic behind the proposed
Flag
Desecration Amendment is childish at best. Very simply, politicians
have decided
that they don't like a specific action, flag desecration, so it
should be
illegal. Modern flag burnings are relatively rare in America
(Cozic). The
revolutionary energy that fueled the flag burning children of
the Sixties has
nearly disappeared. Modern flag burners are a dying breed.
They are no longer
associated with the politically acceptable message of
peace that swept the
nation during the Vietnam conflict. Many flag burners of
the 1990's represent
radical political movements, revolutionary factions, or
organizations that lie
miles to the left or right of conventional bipartisan
politics. The simple fact
is that many of these flag burners make no secret
of the fact that they are
anti-American. Americans can label them however
they like, but should not
overlook the truth. The truth is that flag burners
are minority in America.
Minorities are very easy to persecute.
Persecution would be the immediate result
of the proposed Flag Desecration
Amendment. It is necessary to persecute flag
burners because they possess
unpopular ideas and notions? No matter how
revolutionary, anti-American, or
unpopular the message behind flag burning is
that; Americans should accept,
or at least tolerate the expression of
minorities. In the past, America has
restricted the right of almost every group
of minorities. Today, the
minorities have different faces, but the underlying
issues are the same.
America is a country which prides itself on instilling
equal respect for
everyone, minorities included. There is not a need for a
modernized form of
legalized persecution called the Flag Desecration Amendment.
Also,
overlooked is the obvious reality that flag desecration is entirely
a
victimless crime. A piece of private property is burned. So what? Is it
really
necessary to lock these people away? Are they a threat to anyone's
safety? Does
America require another burden on the prison system? Of
course not! The proposed
Flag Desecration Amendment is just a tool used
to seek a patriot's revenge
against heretic. There is absolutely no
justifiable need. There are certain
freedoms that a free society does not
need to impose upon. Countries with as
much love for liberty as America
should wake up and place its ideals above a
mere idol of a flag. Liberty,
justice, and the true meaning of the First
Amendment will all be lost if
politicians have their way. The only things to be
gained with the proposed
Flag Desecration Amendment are levels of fear and
fascism imposed by American
lawmakers. Yes, that's right. Fascism. By
definition, a fascist law is one
that pushes patriotism to an extreme or violent
extent. The proposed Flag
Desecration Amendment doesn't necessarily push
patriotism to a violent
extent, but is does force patriotism to an extreme. The
Proposed Flag
Desecration Amendment would use government as a tool to turn the
American
flag, a perennial symbol of patriotism, into an untouchable holy
object. This
is fascism. Ultimately a flag is a simple piece of cloth with many
colors and
designs imprinted on it; many Americans have clearly invested this
fabric
with highly emotionally charged values. Although, flag burning is
hardly
likely to threaten the flag's symbolic value, forbidding flag burning
will
surely diminish the flag's principles.