[doseyclwn]

Was just wondering what you guys thought about the resolution that just passed the house making it illegal to desecrate the flag. I, for one, and vehemently against it.

Let me start out by saying that I would NEVER desecrate the flag. I am proud to be an American, and would view that as disrespectful and would not do it, no matter what my feeling of the government is. At the same time, making it illegal to do so and jailing protesters is something I would expect of the regime of Saddam Hussein. I have always believed that we need to take the good with the bad in this country, that we dont' get to pick and choose who we give rights to. People that burn the flag are open to all sorts of public retaliation. I can choose to not associate or do business with those that burn it. But I do not want them jailed. I have to wonder what freedoms they will go against next.

Comments???

[Carlos Cabeza]

Well, at least in jail they'd be safe from the likes of people like me.............:fire:

Once again, How many G.I's are buried on that beach in France ?

[Russ]

I agree with you to the extent that it should not be a crime. I don't like to see it happen but to ban it gets close to restricting speech. Those who gave their lives for the U.S. didn't do it for a flag. They did it for home, country, family and their buddies.

[tyme]

There's usually at least one flag-burning amendment being tossed around somewhere in the federal legislature. It's nothing to be concerned about. 38 states won't pass it.

[cuchulainn]

If the goal of Congress is to increase flag burning, they're on the right track. By making it illegal, they sanction it among those who fancy themselves "rebels" against "the man's machine."

[Carlos Cabeza]

I don't want to see forms of "free speech" restrictions either, but many people view the flag as a symbol of the freedoms this country was founded upon and those that gave their lives to preserve it. Yes, it is truly just a piece of ornately colored cloth, but the symbolism for many, runs much deeper than its mere "spun cotton into fabric then dyed colors" manufacture. This has been discussed before, Free speech is still free speech but there can be consequences and recourse for it, hence me putting my size 12 Danner up some hippie, birkenstock wearin', tree huggers fourth point of contact.

[Mike Irwin]

So if this passes, perhaps we should burn copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights instead?

Oh wait, Congress is doing that for us.

[Carlos Cabeza]

Mike, I don't approve of that type of demonstation either, there are several in washington I'd like to show similar "support" :D

[Marko Kloos]

I fully agree with Senator John Glenn on the subject:

"For those who served in the armed services, we risked our lives because we believed it was our duty to defend our nation. I can tell you that in combat you do not start out thinking about the philosophy of our nation. When you start a run on a ground position from the air, through antiaircraft, or lead a patrol where people are getting shot, you do not think about those philosophical thoughts. It is the survival of the moment that holds your attention. Only later do you think about some of these great philosophical thoughts.
But every last tiny fiber in our flag stands for someone who has given his or her life to defend what it stands for. Many of us here have as many friends in Arlington Cemetery, bearing silent witness to our flag, as we do bearing public witness to it in the world of the living. Maybe that is why I have so little patience, and even less sympathy, for those pathetic and insensitive few who would demean and defile our nation's greatest symbol of sacrifice. They deserve harsh censure.

But, in what I view as their demented ways, they also have my pity because they cannot, apparently, feel the pride and the exhilaration that comes from being called to a purpose larger than ones own self. They cannot feel the pride in our nation and what it stands for, even though not perfect as yet; the pride in a nation whose very strength rests in a guarantee of freedom of expression for every single person, whether that person agrees with the majority, or not. It is a guarantee that some misguided souls exploit for their own egotistical, self-centered purposes.

I believe that the members of this Committee have a special responsibility to recognize that it would be a hollow victory indeed if we preserved the symbol of our freedoms by chipping away at those fundamental freedoms themselves. Let the flag fully represent all the freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights, not a partial, watered-down version that alters its protections.

The flag is the nation's most powerful and emotional symbol. It is our most sacred symbol. And it is our most revered symbol. But it is a symbol. It symbolizes the freedoms that we have in this country, but it is not the freedoms themselves. That is why this debate is not between those who love the flag on the one hand and those who do not on the other. No matter how often some try to indicate otherwise, everyone on both sides of this debate loves and respects the flag. The question is, how best to honor it and at the same time not take a chance of defiling what it represents.

Those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, who died following that banner, did not give up their lives for a red, white and blue piece of cloth. They died because they went into harm's way, representing this country and because of their allegiance to the values, the rights and principles represented by that flag and to the Republic for which it stands.

Without a doubt, the most important of those values, rights and principles is individual liberty: The liberty to worship, to think, to express ourselves freely, openly and completely, no matter how out of step those views may be with the opinions of the majority. In that first amendment to the Constitution we talk about freedom of speech, of religion, or the press and right to assemble.

The Bill of Rights was not included in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was added after the Constitution was passed. Some states refused to ratify the Constitution because it did not have a Bill of Rights defining basic human rights that they wanted this country to stand for. James Madison worked to get a Bill of Rights put together while the Constitution was already in existence.

The Congress passed the first 10 amendments known today as the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly are protected in the First Amendment.

That commitment to freedom is encapsulated and encoded in our Bill of Rights, perhaps the most envied and imitated document anywhere in this world. The Bill of Rights is what makes our country unique. It is what has made us a shining beacon of hope, liberty, of inspiration to oppressed peoples around the world for over 200 years.

In short, it is what makes America, America. Those 10 amendments to the Constitution we call the Bill of Rights have never been changed or altered by one iota, by one word, not a single time in all of American history. That is how our forefathers have looked at the Bill of Rights. There was not a single word of change during any of our foreign wars, and not during recessions or depression or panics. Not a single change when we were going through great national times of trials and tribulations and times of great emotion and anger like the Vietnam era, when flag after flag was burned or desecrated, far more often than they are today. Even during all that time, our first amendment remained unchanged and unchallenged.

The amendment under consideration today goes directly to the issue of freedom of speech. We are talking about freedom of expression. The Supreme Court has held on two separate occasions that no matter how great the majority, the minority, under our Bill of Rights, has the right of expression. That expression is protected by freedom of speech.

Do we want to take a chance on reducing our freedom of speech? What about freedom of the press? Do we want to open even a tiny chance to restrict our ability to assemble peaceably? And do we want to take a chance that we would not be able to petition our government for redress of grievances? Those are the things that are covered in that first amendment, known as the Bill of Rights.

I think there is only one way to weaken the fabric of our country, our unique country, our country that stands as a beacon before other nations around this world and that is to allow the few misguided souls to lessen the freedom that we all share.

One of the most exhilarating things that can ever happen to a man or woman is to be able to represent their country and be called to something, to a purpose larger than themselves. I feel sorry for people who have never had that experience. It is something you cannot really explain.

Of course some may argue that the First Amendment is not and has never been absolute, that we already have restrictions on freedoms of expression and that a prohibition on flag burning would simply be one more? After all, it is said that freedom of speech does not extend to slander, libel, revealing military secrets, or of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. That is true. To the extent that flag burning would incite others to violence in response does not constitute a clear and present danger, and that is what the Supreme Court ruled. The difference here is whether it is a clear and present danger that we have every right to try to avert.

I believe that this argument misses a key distinction, and that distinction is that all those restrictions on free speech I just mentioned threaten real and specific harm to other people, harm that would come about because of what the speaker said, not because of what the listeners did.

To say that we should restrict speech or expression that would outrage a majority of listeners or move them to violence is to say that we will tolerate only those kinds of expression that the majority agrees with, or at least does not disagree with too much. That would do nothing less than gut the First Amendment.

What about the argument that flag desecration is an act and is not a form of speech or expression that is protected by the First Amendment? Well, I think that argument is a bit specious. Anybody burning a flag in protest is clearly saying something. They are making a statement by their body language, and what they are doing makes a statement that maybe speaks far, far louder than the words they may be willing to utter on such an occasion.

They are saying something, just the same way as people who picket, or march in protest, or use other forms of symbolic speech expressing themselves. Indeed, if we did not view flag burners as something we find offensive and repugnant, we surely would not be debating their right to do so.

Let me say a word about something that has gotten short shrift in this debate, something we should consider very carefully. I am talking about the practical problems with this amendment. Let us say we pass it, the States pass it, it becomes an amendment, and we change the Constitution. Then what a nightmare we would have enforcing it.

If Congress and States are allowed to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag, how precisely are we defining the flag? We do not have an official flag, as such, with an exact size, type, kind of ink, dyes, or fabric. There is no official flag, as such. So does this amendment refer to only manufactured flags of cloth or nylon of a certain size or description, such as the one we fly over the Capitol? Does it refer to the small paper flags on a stick we hand out to children at political rallies or stick in a cupcake at a banquet? Those flags are often tossed on the floor or in a garbage can at conclusion of an event. How about during the 1976 bicentennial when vendors were selling flag bikini swimsuits for women and boxer shorts for men.

Remember that the proper way to destroy a flag that is old or has become soiled is to burn it. But what if you do it in protest? What was the intent? Every lawyer will tell you that the toughest thing to prove is intent.

I do not know what the courts would do in a case like that. We can go on with all kinds of examples here of how this would be very difficult to administer, and it would be subject to 50 different interpretations. I might be able to do something in Ohio, and I drive across the Ohio River to Kentucky, West Virginia, or Pennsylvania and the same thing might be illegal.

This amendment should be defeated. The dangers from it far outweigh the threat that we have to the flag. I simply do not believe that this is a major problem for this country requiring an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Our most revered symbol stands for freedom but is not freedom itself. We must not let those who revile our way of life trick us into diminishing our great gift or even take a chance of diminishing our freedoms."

[Mark Tyson]

As a form of symbolic speech, I think that we must allow it. We cannot prohibit speech just because it is offensive to us, that would be hypocritical. The thing that makes this country worth fighting for is the fact that you can dissent. Once we lose that right then we become like every other totalitarian police state.

That said, the unfortunate person who tries to burn my flag is going to be hating life.

Additionally, there was recently a cross burning case that made to the Supreme Court, and the court ruled that cross burning is not protected speech. I think that if you allow flag burning, you have to allow cross burning as well.

[Chris Rhines]

Who does the flag belong to?

- Chris

[CZ-75]

Doesn't the House have anything worthwhile to work on?

OTOH, keeping them occupied with BS like this keeps them from usurping the freedoms I will use.





"It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for."


- Will Rogers.

[CZ-75]

Who does the flag belong to?


Who does your property belong to when you must pay tax on it in order to retain possession?

Can you do what you want on your property?

Quite obviously, complete ownership and free use are concepts that exist only in theory. Reality shows that we are only serfs/tenants and the govt. our landlord and master.

The issue of owning the flag and using it as you see fit are only a microcosm in the bigger picture and there is nothing new under the sun when .gov tells you what you can and can't do with your "property."

Oh, I should mention you can't even do what you wish with your own body - suicide is against the law most places, though I'm sure the prosecution rate is very low. ;)

[Graystar]

There are some things that you simply should not do, and burning your own country's flag is one of them.

It is, at best, a contradictory statement. Burning the flag of an organization clearly symbolizes a desire for that organization to exist no more. However, it is because of that very organization that you have the freedom to express yourself in the first place.

Lets not be naive. We *need* government. Without it, some other government will simply come here and take over. How would you like to be speaking German? Or French? You're living in a fantasy world if you think a quickly assemble militia is going to protect your homeland. That has never worked.

Our government, flawed as it may be, certainly deserves at least a tiny bit of consideration for what it does for us. I think a law banning flag burning fits just right. We may not like what is going on in part of our government, but we certainly don't want to see our system of government disappear. It's the best system on the planet!

[Mark Tyson]

CZ-75 has brought up a very important point.

If you pay for it, the flag is yours to burn.

[Shalako]

During the Iraq war, freedom of speech helped to identify those I disagree with. Flag burning helps to identify those I depise. Seems like an efficient clarification process to me.

[Chris Rhines]

It is, at best, a contradictory statement. Burning the flag of an organization clearly symbolizes a desire for that organization to exist no more. This is certainly not contradictory. Although I have never burned a flag, by this logic I should, because I very much desire that the United States government (for starters) cease to exist.

However, it is because of that very organization that you have the freedom to express yourself in the first place. No. The government does not grant freedoms. Rather, in spite of the government, I have some small freedom of expresion.

Although I have no first-hand knowledge of this, I suspect that most of the nation-states that ban the desecration of flags are paragons of human rights like China and Zimbabwae.

Lets not be naive. We *need* government. I am willing to accept the possibility that there are people out there who need government. I assure you; I am not one of them. I bet that most of the people who frequent this board would be able to compose themselves quite well in the absence of government.

Without it, some other government will simply come here and take over. Nice theory, but the evidence is kinda shaky.

Our government, flawed as it may be, certainly deserves at least a tiny bit of consideration for what it does for us. I'm willing to give government exactly the consideration it deserves for what it does. Let's see - the government steals my money, restricts my property rights, regulates what I can and cannot place into my own body, spies on me, invades my privacy, and in general makes a nuisance out of itself. I consider that I would be much better off without it.

I think a law banning flag burning fits just right. Back to the point, I'll ask again. Who owns the flag? If the governement wants to nationalize all American flags, then it could (in theory - such an action would be morally indefensible) ban the burning of its own property. Otherwise, if I buy a flag, it is mine to do with as I please.

...but we certainly don't want to see our system of government disappear. Not at all. Twenty years from now, I hope to see American democracy being studied in museums and laboratories, much like smallpox is today. :D

It's the best system on the planet! Much like being the healthiest patient in the terminal oncology ward.

- Chris

[Sir Galahad]

Well, Chris, feel free to use your flag as a crying towel.:rolleyes:

[Graystar]

Nice theory, but the evidence is kinda shaky. I'm not sure what planet you grew up on, but throughout the entire earth history any piece of land that had any value has been fought over and taken by a superior force. That is the reality of the world we live in.
No. The government does not grant freedoms. Rather, in spite of the government, I have some small freedom of expresion. I never claimed that the government grants freedoms. But it should be clear from recent Supreme Court decisions that our government means to protect freedom of expression.

Maybe you should live in China for a while. Then you'll realize how good you have it hear.

[Marko Kloos]

I think a law banning flag burning fits just right.

Flag burning is an effective form of political protest precisely because it is repulsive to so many people. Freedom of speech includes political protest, and free speech is only guaranteed for everyone if it is granted to even the most loathsome segment of society.

Banning flag burning as such is equal to invalidating the First Amendment. It suggests that speech and expression can be curbed if it is repulsive to a large enough segment of society. Then you end up on a slippery slope, since the right to free speech is suddenly subject to majority approval. The problem with that is that the Bill of Rights is supposed to be majority-proof.

The Bill of Rights is the only thing that makes this country unique, because it recognizes the inviolable nature of human rights. If you nibble away at it, even with well-meaning but uncomprehending zeal, you destroy everything the flag stands for, and then it would only become a piece of cloth. By forbidding the burning of the flag, you destroy one of the fundamental freedoms that the flag represents. You'll destroy Old Glory more effectively than any protester with a Zippo ever could.

[Chris Rhines]

I'm not sure what planet you grew up on, but throughout the entire earth history any piece of land that had any value has been fought over and taken by a superior force. You misunderstand me. The point was that a lack of government does not necessaraly imply the lack of a means of territorial defense. Another thing true throughout history - any good or service worth having has been provided at lower cost, privately.

I never claimed that the government grants freedoms. But it should be clear from recent Supreme Court decisions that our government means to protect freedom of expression. Not sure what Supreme Court decision you're refering to. I don't remember any that indicated that the big nine have any conception of freedom of expression, much less any intention of preserving it.

- Chris

[ravinraven]

The anti-flag-burner amendment is in fact letting nitwits on any side of any issue dictate a change to the constitution. We went through the "nit wit" thing back when we let a bunch of p.o.ed women ram prohibition down our throats-----is that a pun?-----?

And, as someone said above, free speech in any form is nice so you have a definite idea of who to despise.

Free speech is a wonderful thing for the government too. I've seen cases where everyone in an area gets up in arms about something, the gov't sends in a team of weinies --[did you ever wonder how they get selected? "Hey. Charlie. Joe. Fred. You fools were late for happy hour every night last week. Saddle up and go see what's eating ravinraven and his crowd of pinheads."]-- and they hold a "hearing." Everyone yells and no one listens. After the crowd gets hoarse, the gov't guys smile and thank everyone for their "input." They head for the nearest bar passing the nearest trash can where they dump the notes they so conspicuously noted and the crowd goes home smiling "We told those sons of biscuits of baskets where to get off."

But that's a hell of a lot better than everyone keeping it pent up and having it explode literally somewhere like OKC.

May we live in interesting times. I just don't want to live in Hillarious times. 'Course we're doing that up here already. She even showed up in my town.....But that's another story.

rr

[Pward]

Chris Rhines said

You misunderstand me. The point was that a lack of government does not necessaraly imply the lack of a means of territorial defense.

Please explain this in more detail :confused:

[Graystar]

Not sure what Supreme Court decision you're refering to. Republican Party of Minnesota v. Kelly
Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition
Cook v. Gralike

There have also been circuit and state appeals court rulings protecting expression, like the decision by the Idaho Supreme Court that a man yelled "F**k!" in a police station was protected by the first amendment and was *not* guilty of disturbing the peace.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17170

[Boats]

I'd rather see them decriminalize stomping a flag burner into the cloth ashes. Certain people should learn the true hazards of their offensive speech.:evil:












(TIC!)

[Ian]

You misunderstand me. The point was that a lack of government does not necessaraly imply the lack of a means of territorial defense.

Please explain this in more detail
People can defend land without needing a government to tell them how to or when to. This is the concept of the militia which this nation's Founders grasped and utilized. One example I've been reading up on lately is central Afghanistan. Unless I'm uninformed about an ancient event, that place has never been successfully conquered. Most notably, the Russians were booted out by spontaneous, non-governmental resistance over the course of 8 or so years. The British met the same fate several times there. The closest thing to a government in the mountains of the area are a number of tribal systems. In addition, the Boers very nearly defeated the British, and our own American ancestors defeated the British. A centralized government is not essential to territorial defense - the will to fight is the essential element (this has the convenient side effect of rendering civilian armies nearly incapable of offensive warfare).

I never claimed that the government grants freedoms. But it should be clear from recent Supreme Court decisions that our government means to protect freedom of expression.You're neglecting to mention that those decisions protect freedom of expression from none other than the government itself. No government, no problem there in the first place. :)

[campergeek]

My personal thoughts:

I disagree with burning the flag.

I agree with having the right to burn the flag.


Some years ago when this was a hot issue, I remember there was some locality that passed an ordinance that permitted flag burning and made battery of a flag burner a specific crime - with a penalty of a $1 fine. Thinking about it deeply that's probably a slipperly slope, but on the surface I like the equity of such a law. :D

[Silver Bullet]

I'm not in favor of an amendment prohibiting flag-burning, either.

I'm not a constitutional scholar (I'd like to be), but it seems to me that the Constitution is a tool to define and limit the authority of the federal government, not a device to limit the people. I don't believe the Constitution is the place for this kind of thing. And I don't want to see a precedent of politicians changing the Constitution on a whim; once they get a taste of it, who knows what amendments they might add or delete, if you catch my drift. If they have to change the Constitution, let them repeal the XVII.

Not to appear anti-flag, but I'd also like to see school children pledging allegiance to the Constitution instead of the flag.

[CZ-75]

I'm not a constitutional scholar

I question the value of anything meant to promote the general welfare of the people that is complicated enough to warrant this amount of specialized study. Seems to me this is a sure indication that most folks can't understand their rights and means that enough latitude exists for endless obfuscations. Abridgment of these rights must follow.

Not to appear anti-flag, but I'd also like to see school children pledging allegiance to the Constitution instead of the flag.

When folks talk about men dying for their country, which do they think these men actually died for? I doubt it was a piece of cloth, but rather the ideals enshrined in a document.

[Zander]

Oh wait, Congress is doing that for us. -- MIOoooh, that's just so sharp that I need your help in honing my carry knives' edges.

Well done, sir... :cool:

Freedom of speech includes political protest, and free speech is only guaranteed for everyone if it is granted to even the most loathsome segment of society. -- lendringser [moderator]So you are in agreement that teachers and students of government-indoctrination centers should be allowed to express their opinions without fear of governmental abuse because they, at worst, meet your definition of the "most loathsome segment of society"? Outstanding!

Another thing true throughout history - any good or service worth having has been provided at lower cost, privately. -- Chris RhinesExcept, of course, if certain individuals deem it perfectly acceptable to destroy any business vending products or services "dangerous" to society.

You know what I mean, don't you, Chris? You should...you're on record in this very forum and on TFL.

[Destructo6]

I'm with CZ-75: the ideals for which the flag stands are important, not the flag itself.

However, I'm not sure I could resist pounding someone for doing it.

[Henry Bowman]

I hate to have to say this, but . . .
This is the Republicans' form of "feel-good" legislation that we see every session.

[doseyclwn]

I'm with CZ-75: the ideals for which the flag stands are important, not the flag itself.

However, I'm not sure I could resist pounding someone for doing it.

I am. Those people are not worth my time, or my spending time in jail.

I can think of several ways to combat that sort of attitude rather than physically beating them up. Like holding my son, watching them, and taking the time to explain to him why I disagree with them. By showing that a person that would do that is full of hate and disgust rather than love and compassion. In fact, it affords me the opportunity to address the issue.

[CZ-100]

While seeing someone desecrate the flag in this manner does PISS ME OFF! :fire: I do not agree that there should be a law against it.. I believe in the freedom of speech more.

So NO there should not be an amendment for this.

I would love to see some of these people burn themselves while doing it thought

:D

[Derek Zeanah]

I think a law banning flag burning fits just rightBut could some lawyer interpret this amendment to mean that the flag sewed on the back of a biker's jacket is "desecration?" Or a flag-themed necktie? How about someone wearing a stars 'n stripes do-rag? What if the flag in my front yard falls off the pole and gets all muddy and dog-poopy -- can I burn it, or is there now going to be a new way to properly dispose of a flag?

[Graystar]

But could some lawyer interpret this amendment to mean that the flag sewed on the back of a biker's jacket is "desecration?" Is it on fire?

[mattd]

How about making it legal to punch a person burning the flag?

[Silver Bullet]

How about making it legal to punch a person burning the flag?
Sounds like personal expression to me ! :)

[mattd]

Its already illegal to burn stuff in my city anyways.

[FPrice]

"What if the flag in my front yard falls off the pole and gets all muddy and dog-poopy -- can I burn it, or is there now going to be a new way to properly dispose of a flag?"

Burning is the correct method of disposing of an unserviceable flag. But done with proper respect and ceremony - NOT the antics that go on at protests.

[Derek Zeanah]

Burning is the correct method of disposing of an unserviceable flag. But done with proper respect and ceremony - NOT the antics that go on at protests.That's what they taught us in Boy Scouts, but I don't see an exception being made.

Lots of searching resulted in the following -- apparently from the last time this was tried, back in 1989:


(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term ''flag of the United States'' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.


Sounds to me like I can come to a demonstration with a pile of flags that need to be destroyed and burn 'em, slash 'em, shred 'em, stomp 'em (cause they're on fire, you understand), etc to my heart's content. How does that stop the behavior you disagree with?

[Marko Kloos]

(b) As used in this section, the term ''flag of the United States'' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.

That definition also includes the little paper flags they hand out at parades. Talk about an unenforcable law...who's getting fined, the people who throw them away after the parade, or the city workers who sweep 'em up and throw them in the trash?

[Seeker]

How about making it legal to punch a person burning the flag?

That would be wrong and un-American! What could possibly give you the right to initate violence against another person, outside of self-defense?

The laws regarding flag-burning should be the same as the laws for burning anything. It must be your personal property and done in such a fashion as to not create a fire danger.

It is already wrong to destroy what isn't yours.

The flag is a symbol, thats all. If are making a statement with that symbol that is your business - provided it is your property and it is done in a safe manner. If you want to fly your flag on your property, that's fine - if you fly it in such a way that it obscures a stop sign then youare creating a hazard and you should cease and desist. likewise if you go to walmart and buy a flag take it to the park and use it as a fire starter in the designated firepit that is your business and NOBODY has the right to come up and punch you for it. If you take someone elses' flag and burn it you should be chaged w/ theft and arson the same as if you stole someones shirt and set fire to it.

Limiting what a person can do with there own property, especially the symbol of Freedom, desecates the very Freedom that the flag reresents.

When will these statists disquised as rebuplicans understand that passing laws telling us what we can and can't do (provided you don't damage anothers property or harm another) is un-American?

I couldn't be more opposed to the proposed amendment!

That said; at my house I fly the flag 24x7x365 and have for ten years. I also wear the colors, permamently, on my right arm.

[Mark Tyson]

I say again: If you pay for the flag, it's yours to burn.

And like Seeker, I've got a flag on my skin too. Try burning that one!