🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Cu1wut.Anp@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, Brian L. Robinson writes:

} In article <Cu0yJ7.364@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, fife@viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (Greg Fife) writes:
} > In article <Cu0vs8.xH@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
} >    prs9k@brain.neuro.virginia.edu (Phil Scarr) writes:
} > 
} > >I wasn't aware that murder is an covered by the 1st amendment as a form
} > >of free speech.  Sheesh, talk about apples and oranges...
} > 
} > You know the difference, and I certainly know the difference, but I'm
} > not at all convinced that Pat Robertson fully understands the difference.
} 
} Well, if burning a flag can be considered "speech", then why NOT murder or any
} other act for that matter?

Was this rhetorical, or do you really not have a clue about the
difference?  Guessing the latter... There is no question that the
First Amendment was intended [primarily!] to protect _political_
expression.  The tradition of non-verbal "speech" goes back
hundreds of years.  I think that there is _no_ question that
burning a flag is a political comment that _certainly_ gets
attention.  [in fact, its very effectiveness is fairly conclusive
evidence that it *is* an effective "communication"].

But now let's turn it around: on what basis would one argue that it
is appropriate to criminalize "desecrating" a flag?  One thing that
is _quite_ clear in the Constitution is that the framers were
trying to get *away* from "patriotism tests".  Part of the
privilege of free speech is the freedom to speak *against* the very
system which is guaranteeing your right to speak.  I know that
galls the "my country, love it or leave it" crowd, but the fact is
that that's the nature of freedom: either we're free to say
unpleasant things [in fact, in a recent SCt decision the justices
in their dicta reaffirmed that very notion: that what is most
precious about the First Amendment is to protect *unwelcome*
speech... you don't need the 1st if all you're going to be doing is
preaching to the choir].

Another similar thing that pisses off the super-patriots: the
framers were *amazingly* specific about the crime of treason.  I
think it is the _only_ crime that is explicitly spelled out in the
Constitution.  Any intuition why?  The reason is that they were
trying to make sure that the country *didn't* go down the route of
"be 'patriotic' [by my definition] or go to jail".  One aspect of
British law that they found intolerably offensive was the "Crimes
against the Crown".  Damn near _anything_, trivial or not, could
just be called a 'crime against the crown' and you'd end up in Old
Bailey for the rest of your life.

I only went off on the above diversion to highlight the notion that
"patriotism" is for-sure one thing that was intended *not* to be
legislatable.  If you could be thrown in jail for burning a flag,
might you also be thrown in jail for not standing during the
playing of the national anthem before a baseball game?  How about
making it a crime not to have _all_ of the stanzas of the Star
Spangled Banner memorized [and with "patriotism check points" set
up here and there]?

In fact, even without the First Amendment, the idea of banning
flag burning [presumably as part of a patriotism requirement for
citizens] makes just _no_ sense at all.

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                               bernie@fantasyfarm.com
Fantasy Farm Fibers, Pearisburg, VA         (703) 921-2358
Why the world is in such a sorry state: Too many people; not enough sheep