Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    Exactly how would you word a Constitutional amendment supporting
    democracy in China?
                  
    On a subtopic which speech associated muscles are used in igniting
    a flag?
    
    /. Ian .\
    

Re:  .0

>   Bush... has decided to pursue a constitutional amendment against
>   descration of the American flag because "First Amendment rights
>   shouldn't go _that_ far."

>   I found this upsetting...

I don't believe that flag burning is an appropriate subject for a constitu-
tional amendment.  In my opinion, the Constitution should deal with broad
generalities (e.g., Congress may not abridge free speech) rather than spe-
cifics (e.g., Congress may not outlaw specific types of discussions).  Spe-
cifics should be left to laws made by a legislature.  And if the current
generality in effect (in this case the first amendment) prevents Congress
from passing a law forbidding flag burning, then either we should repeal
the first amendment or we should dismiss the entire issue as being utterly
unworthy of executive and legislative time.

I think burning flags is tacky but generally harmless to most people, and I
would thus not outlaw such actions.  I can think of about 500 things that
Bush would do better to spend his time on than flag burning.  I am appalled
that he thinks so little of the first amendment as to suggest such an amend-
ment.  When I hear Bush propose a constitutional amendment I feel vindicated
in my decision to vote against him last November.

In short, I agree with you, Tracy.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

    re:.0 + .3
    Dick and Tracy, I agree with you! Well said by both. Question: Did
    you really expect anything else from Mr. Bush?
    
    Kate
    

    
    ...and it shows us the horror of the president we have elected: any
    reasonable person would think that an equal rights ammendment, for
    example, would be more important than a colored cloth ammendment.
    
    re: previous remark about jaw muscles
    someone said that picasso's "guernica" is the greatest anti-war
    statement ever made...
    

RE:all
I hope he truly did not mean a constitutional convention but rather a
Constitutional *AMENDMENT*.
Here is why:

if a "law" is passed as an amendment by congress it is then sent to the states 
for ratification, it takes, I believe, 37 states to ratify it to be a 
*PART OF THE ALREADY EXISTING CONSTITUTION*. That amendment is then subject
to the same interpretation/court-rulings/etc as all the current ones.

if the same number of states agree to a Constitutional Convention(again 37
comes to mind) then *THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION* is open for re-writing/changing
additions/deletions not just a single part or amendment.

My feeling is there are so many special interest groups that what we would get
would be some horrible bastardization of existing attitudes and *NOT* a
true constitution.    

Most politicians have been smart enough to not call for a convention. Bush
is not neccesarilly that smart.

Oh-yeah, about flag burning, I am extremely patriotic, I think what he did
(in texas) was in extremely bad taste, if I had been there I probably would
have beaten the h*ll out of him, but I don't think we need a lot of new/stupid
laws, he probably has the "right" to demonstrate his displeasure at the 
government. no symbol should be deified.

Amos

    He did say _amendment_.  It is a lengthy and difficult process,
    which is why many in the press were speculating that we would take
    a different tack.
    
    Thank you, Dick, for articulating beautifully what I meant to say.
    
    Given this action, it will be interesting to see how Bush responds
    if the Supreme Court upholds Roe vs. Wade.
    
    -T.
    

    As an NPR editorialist pointed out last night:  it wasn't the burner
    who first cheapened the flag's symbolic value, it was those who used it
    as an advertising tool, or who waved it to show how super-patriotic
    they were...or wrapped themselves in it as a shield against criticism.
    
    						=maggie

    Wasn't there an incident last year where Bush presented the head of
    a foreign government with a pair of boots that had American flags
    on them?  The foreign leader was taken aback at the idea of the 
    flag on an article of footwear.
    
                                cathy

    
RE: 673.1

    
    >Exactly how would you word a Constitutional amendment supporting
    >democracy in China?
    
    The point is that there are better things for the President to spend
    his time on.
                  
    >On a subtopic which speech associated muscles are used in igniting
    >a flag?
     
    Which speech associated muscles are used to write a letter of protest,
    or to paint a banner? (Not to mention more subtle forms of expression
    that are protected such as music and art).
    
    Roberta
    /. Ian .\
    

    
    In my earlier reply (.1) I mentioned, sarcastically, the use of
    speech muscles in the context of burning the flag. .0 refers to
    the fact that "freedom of speech shouldn't go that far..." in the
    context of the First amendment apparently permitting flag burning.
    
    The first amendment reads as follows.
    
                              -< Amendments. Article {I} >-         
    
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
    prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
    speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
    assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

    Now burning the flag isn't a religion, nor is it part of the religious
    observances of the protestors. Nor were the protestors acredited
    representatives of the press. Nor were they 'petitioning the
    government', nor is burning the national symbol 'peacable assembly".
    
    Therefore I come to the inescapable conclusion that they were speaking.
    
    I repeat: which organs of speech are in use when you burn a flag?
    
    Writing a placard or poster is part of peaceable assembly and
    petitioning the government. Writing [possibly offensive, even obscene]
    diatribes is covered by freedom of the press, even when the writer is
    not accredited to a newspaper or TV station.    
    
    TV, photography and other media not invented in 1776 are probably
    included by extension (as modern firearms are included in 2nd amendment
    rights, which is not seen as limited to flintlocks, swords and other
    arms of the day). But I don't see anything in the First Amendment
    that says you have the implicit right to burn the national symbol.  
                       
    /. Ian .\
    
    
                  

    Ian, "symbolic speech" has long been recognised by the courts as being
    protected under the First Amendment, and is typically construed as an
    act that is (a) politically motivated and (b) not intrinsically
    criminal such as assassination which, out of the political context, is
    murder.  Burning a flag, reduced to its mundane essence, is simply
    burning a piece of cloth, which is not illegal.
    
    						=maggie

    
    hmmm...
    
    when I reduce it to its essence I arrive at a calculated insult
    to the nation.
    
    not quite the same thing is it?
             
    Out of curiosity what were the original protestors charged with?
    
    In any event, on this one I agree with G. Bush: burning a national
    flag *should* be "intrinsically criminal" (to use Maggie's phrase).
    To be honest I can see little but a difference of degree between
    burning a national flag and any other act of treason.
    
    /. Ian .\

    As an aside: I thought I remembered (from "civics" class in grade
    school, a long time ago) that burning a flag was the only legal way to
    dispose of one if you wanted to because it was worn out or whatever?
    If you think that the cloth that makes up a flag is important in and of
    itself, there aren't many "dignified" ways to get rid of it, after all:
    you could recycle it (maybe), bury it in a landfill, cut it up into
    unrecognizable pieces and then recycle, bury, or burn it, etc.
    
    I wish that the gentleman that I didn't vote for would devote his time
    to championing more important issues.  But maybe it's just as well,
    since I don't agree with him on most things anyhow, that time be
    devoted instead to empty but emotional issues like this one!  I'd
    rather he be doing this than fighting the ERA or imposing Sunday "blue
    laws" on those of us who aren't Christians anyhow (I'm Jewish) or
    spending my tax money on other such stuff.
    
    
    /Charlotte

    I don't *like* the idea of burning the flag as political protest....
    Or placing it on the floor as 'art' where people are encourage to
    walk on it.  But...
    
    I also don't think that the proper remedy to the Supreme Court's
    decision is an amendment.  Having society disagree with court decisions
    is nothing new.  The appropriate response is to wait until one or
    more justices have changed, and then bring another, similar case
    to get the decision changed.  (As those who disagreed with the Roe
    v. Wade decision have done on another issue of controversy.)
    
    The right to freedom of expression is critical to what the USA is
    all about.  If this decision is required to enable me the freedom
    to disagree with the current government, then I will live with it.
    
    Alison

    For exactly this reason, that America is a country that upholds
    the right to dissent openly, the burning of our national symbol
    apalls me. If your beef is with George Bush, by all means burn
    *him* in effigy. Or whoever. Better yet, present a rational
    rebuttal to his falacious statements. But to burn the flag is to
    insult ones' *right* to burn the flag, which only proves that 
    one is a fool.
    
    With reluctance, I agree that one has that right. But I would 
    probably react violently to the sight. 
        
    Dana

    It seems to me that there is a considerable parallel between
    flag-burning and blasphemy (which is illegal under British law, where
    it is defined solely in terms of blasphemy against Christianity).  The
    point is that the magnitude of the insult (or crime) depends on the
    observer, and how they interpret the symbolic value of the action, and
    its effect on their beliefs.   This is in all likelyhood very different
    to the meaning the act has for the flag-burner/blasphemer.  To try to
    legislate something as subjective as this seems a very bad idea,
    because it increases the number of laws that make things illegal simply
    because they cause offense to some people.  Once you have such laws
    (especially if they are cast in the constitution), the idea that some
    people's beliefs are more important (and should be better protected)
    than others' seems to be an inescapable consequence.

    
    
    
    
    
    Ian,
    
    First, thanks for typing in the exact wording of the amendment.
    It's good to have a point of reference.
    
>    Writing a placard or poster is part of peaceable assembly and
    
    If you consider writing a poster part of peaceable assembly, why
    wouldn't a flag burning be considered a peaceable assembly.
    
    Roberta
    
    
                  

Re: .16 (Charlotte):

Yes, we were also taught that the only thing to do with a worn out
flag was to burn it.  I heard it repeatedly in school, brownies,
camp,...  I had the feeling it was a *serious* offense to put it in
the garbage can.  We were also told that if the flag ever touches the
ground, it should be burned (for example, if it dropped while you were
folding it). 

/B

    You're right, Ian, burning the flag is (generally) intended as an
    insult to the country (or usually to a particular group or action).
    But, in America, you can insult things (or people) you don't like.  
    It may be a tacky or ineffective way to make a point, but "freedom
    of expression" is such a basic concept here that I think this is
    a dangerous precedent.           
                                              
    By the way, this morning I heard that the House has joined the Senate 
    and Bush in denouncing the Supreme Court decision on this.  This
    surprised me.  Maybe he won't have such a hard time getting an
    amendment passed, after all.
    
    -Tracy
       

    
    Why do I consider a poster OK and flag burning not? - many reasons,
    but briefly I perceive (call it a gut feel if you like) that burning
    something - be it a flag or an effigy - is inherently a violent
    act. If it is a flag it is also an insulting act.
    
    A demonstration were an effigy or flag is burned simply isn't peaceful.
    
    Standing holding a placard is OK - but beating passers by with it isn't...
    
    Unfortunately most of these things aren't done because the protestor
    needs to do them to get the attention of politicians but because
    they need to do it to guarantee front page pictures in the newspapers
    and lead item status on the 6 o'clock news!
    
    The freedom in the US is wonderful, and the continued freedom to
    protest is perhaps surprising (and back in 1776 they said it wouldn't
    last!) But not all freedoms are, or need to be, unfettered. 
    
    I am sure that the Founding Fathers had in mind protecting the channels
    that allowed reasoned philosophical thoughts to be published. They
    wanted to ensure that thinking men had all the facts - I doubt they
    really wanted to allow a channel for the great unwashed to vent their
    spleens on national network TV! 
    
    In the debate on the Second amendment I hear people saying that
    the right to own and bear arms may be unfettered but the community
    has the right to pass laws controlling the use of that freedom.
    Surely in a direct parallel the absolute right to freedom of expression
    - that no views no matter how alien to the American way of life
    may be suppressed - can exist whilst laws exist that limit the
    manners in which it is expressed. I no more see a law making flag
    burning an unacceptable way of expressing a political opinion as
    an invalid law because it violates the first amendment than I see
    a law requiring handguns to be registered as violating the second
    amendment
    
    Incidentally I was surprised at how much coverage this Supreme Court
    decision and the consequent Presidential, senatorial and representative
    responsives have gotten in the UK...
    
    /. Ian .\
                                                                              

While George is at it, maybe he can ban other forms of anti-government
statements (what they call in dictatorships counter-government or 
counter-revolutionary propaganda).

Unfortunately, he'll have no problem getting the amendment passed.  The
view of congress and the president is that it is a politically popular
issue.  

Funny, in the past constitutional amendments have tended to prohibit
restrictions of what people can do.  Now they're doing the opposite
(shades of prohibition).

Matt

< Note 673.24 by LASHAM::PHILPOTT_I "Col. Philpott is back in action..." >


    
>>    Why do I consider a poster OK and flag burning not? - many reasons,
>>    but briefly I perceive (call it a gut feel if you like) that burning
>>    something - be it a flag or an effigy - is inherently a violent
>>    act. If it is a flag it is also an insulting act.
    
Don't heat your house in the winter if it involves burning anything.  That's
a violent act by definition.  

The problem is that it's a gut feeling.  Someone in another country won't 
feel the same about burning a U.S. flag as you do.  For that matter, many
people in this country probably don't feel the same.  But some of them might
object to burning a bible, so maybe that ought to be declared unconstitutional
too (getting around church/state).

What about having a protest around a campfire?

>>    A demonstration were an effigy or flag is burned simply isn't peaceful.
    

    
    i think burning the flag is great. i am sometimes so disgusted by
    what this country does or has done that burning a piece of cloth-
    that some people seem to think is more important than real people's
    rights- seems a tame protest. i am appalled, though not surprised, at
    the congress. (and i'm amazed to find myself lauding ted kennedy,
    for whom i've never cared much, for being one of only 3 or 4 senators
    to stand up against this foolish political grandstanding)
    

    I agree with .19, and Tracy, and Dick.  I think it's ridiculous
    to make flag burning illegal.  It seems to me like a rule that a
    dictatorship would make.  I think it's dangerous to encourage too
    much patriotism.  It only serves to encourage people to think of
    themselves as different and maybe better than other people.  I don't
    think our country has reached a condition of such perfection that
    our flag has become such a sacred symbol of righteousness that it
    is a crime to burn it.  It is only a piece of cloth.
    
    I can think of many sights that I find more upsetting than flag
    burning - homeless people, abortion clinics being bombed, students
    being gunned down, George Bush being sworn in as President.
    
    I suppose George thinks that anything to keep people's minds off
    the real problems of the day is good.
    
    Lorna
     

    
    When I read the newspaper about the ruling, all I remember reading
    was that the US Supreme Court said that no state could make flag-burning
    a *criminal* offense.  In the case in Texas upon which this court
    ruling was based upon, the flag-burner was given a whole *year* in jail
    for this.
    
    I read the court ruling to mean that flag-burning could still be a
    misdemeanor which could be finable or something.  But I may have it
    all wrong.  Does anyone else know if a distinction was made?
    
    I can see making flag-burning a misdemeanor and fining someone for it
    (which may still be anti-constitutional by the court ruling), but do you
    really think that someone should spend a year in *jail* for doing that?
    

    Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that burning
    the flag is a protected form of symbolic free speech. Is it any
    different from bra burning? There have been attempts to make bra 
    burning a crime.    
    
    I feel that Busch is simply manipulating the American people; he
    is just latching onto a popular cause, solely for the media effect. 
    There are so many more important things he should be taking care of!
    I am surprised to find myself in agreement with Senators Kennedy
    (D-Mass.) and Humphrey (R-NH) (*very* strange bedfellows, even for
    politics) and their support of the flag burning decision.
                                              
    Amending the Constitution takes years. After Congress proposes an
    amendment, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures
    (or special state Constitional conventions). This is more hype by
    members of Congress, eager to jump onto a popular bandwagon.
    
    Bruce      

    I'm amazed at the heat this issue has caused, both here in notes
    and in the public forum.  My amazement probably stems from being
    taught as a child that the flag was a symbol of my country, but 
    that's all -- a symbol.  People who fought to "defend the flag"
    were really defending my country, and me.  And to me that means
    my freedoms, as well as the freedoms of all the other "great unwashed"
    (to borrow a term used previously) citizens.  In theory the US has
    no aristocracy; we're all (in theory) equal.  So the "great unwashed"
    is all of us.
    
    So, now that you know my feelings on flag burning, let me ask: if
    I remember my civics lessons, the approval of a constitutional
    amendment by the required number of states means "state legislatures,"
    not "state representatives to the Federal government."  Is this
    correct?  If so, all the "Me Too" action in Washington is just so
    much bally-hoo and doesn't __necessarily__ represent the support
    our Fearless Leader could muster to pass his proposed amendment.
    And as the repeated attempts to pass the ERA have shown, getting
    all those state legislatures to agree is a major effort.
    
    Anyone here know the facts?  Or have I just emerged with egg on
    my face?
    
    
    Karen
    

    Re: .29
                                                                     
    The Court ruled that flag burning is symbolic speech, and therefore
    protected, and therefore not a crime -- misdemeanor, felony, or
    violation.
    
    Re: .31
    
    You're right about amending the Constitution. See .30, which apparently
    was written as you were writing your reply.
    
    Bruce
     

    Did the President's argument in favor of an amendment include a
    definition of what a flag was? Does it have to be cloth? Does it have
    to be made by Official Purveyors of the Flag of the United States? Does
    it have to be blessed by the Pope or the Vice-President or somebody?
    
    Would this amendment mean that if I drew a flag on my car and somebody
    torched the car, I could nail him for flag-desecration as well as
    destruction of private property? Or would *I* be liable for
    "desecrating the flag" by drawing it on a foreign car?
    
    Personally, I am wildly fond of flag-type symbolism, but I think it
    needs to be supported by the actions of the country that the flag
    represents, not by legislation. And - as so many have already said -
    there are much more pressing issues facing the government. Sigh...
    
    -b

Re:  .24 (Ian)

>   I perceive (call it a gut feel if you like) that burning something -
>   be it a flag or an effigy - is inherently a violent act.

If flag burning is violent, then upon whom is the violence committed?  It
seems to me that violent acts should never be victimless--either a human
being is harmed (in which case the victim is obvious), or someone's property
is damaged (in which case the property owner has a grievance).  How does flag
burning tie in to this?  No flag burning yet committed has had any adverse
effect upon my health, and unless someone throws a burning flag at me I can't
imagine how any future burning could hurt me, either.  And none of the flags
burned thus far have been owned by me.  From what I have read, no other US
citizen has been hurt, either.  So if we criminalize flag burning we will
have yet another victimless crime.  Experience has shown that it is very
difficult to enforce laws against such things.  It doesn't seem like a good
idea to add yet another unenforceable law to the books.

>   If it is a flag it is also an insulting act.

Could be.  But again, who is being insulted?  Surely not me personally.  The
entire country, perhaps?  The United States has a long history of being in-
sulted by all sorts of people, and it doesn't appear to have been signifi-
cantly damaged by the experience.  What's the problem?  What would we gain
by prohibiting such demonstrations?  It seems to me that any such law would
merely show us US citizens as petulant and unduly thin skinned.

>   Unfortunately most of these things aren't done because the protestor
>   needs to do them to get the attention of politicians but because
>   they need to do it to guarantee front page pictures in the newspapers
>   and lead item status on the 6 o'clock news!

Indeed!  And just how else is a protestor supposed to get a politician's
attention?  What is evil about seeking news coverage?  For those who wish
to gain legislative attention a letter to a politician might prove much
more noticeable if it were accompanied by a front page headline.

I happen to think that flag burning as a form of protest is silly, at best.
But I just don't see any evidence that the act is harmful to the citizenry.
If it isn't harmful, it needs no law prohibiting it.  And it *certainly*
doesn't need constitutional attention.

						--Q

    
    re .34: the flag is a symbolic representation of the nation. Burning
    the flag is violence to the nation. Since the US is a Nation of
    the People the violence (or insult) is delivered to all the people
    of the United States.
    
    /. Ian .\

             
    re several, and my earlier comments: bear in mind that I *am* in
    another country, and frankly still find it hard to imagine how a
    country can permit itself to be held up to ridicule on the world
    stage.
    
    re .-2 (similarity with the california assault rifle fiasco) - yes
    there is a clear similarity between the two. The fiasco over assault
    rifles has opened the gates to legislation (short of constitutional
    amendment) that defines "arms" - the term used in the 2nd Amendment
    - in such a way as to abrogate the original right. This affair opens
    the way to legislation short of constitutional amendment that defines
    "speech" - the term used in the 1st Amendment - in such a way as to 
    abrogate the total freedom currently enjoyed.
                                         
    Now placing my tongue in my cheek and gritting my teeth... 
    
    re .28:
    
    �I can think of many sights that I find more upsetting than flag
    �burning 
     
    so in fairness can I...
    
    �homeless people, 
                                               
    (personal political opinion follows)
    
    quite true: in a truly socialist state there are no homeless people
    of course. However responsibility for this belongs at the local,
    perhaps state level, not the federal level. 
    
    �abortion clinics being bombed, 
    
    I believe this to be illegal already, surely?
    
    �students being gunned down, 
    
    Is it legal to shoot students in America? How odd!
    
    �George Bush being sworn in as President.
     
    That of course is also a political opinion, but apparently the current
    voting system didn't support the view at the last general election.
    Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is needed to prevent the election
    of slightly right wing mental midgets with bird brained draft dodging
    running mates?
                 
    /. Ian .\

    I feel that burning the flag is a legitimate form of protest
    against the United States Government, and should not be held
    any more wrong than verbally protesting the government. With
    all due respect to Ian, calling it an act of treason is simply
    ludicrous.
    
    Whether one considers flag-burning a silly or tacky way of
    protesting is irrelevant. Yes, it is akin to biting the hand
    that feeds you, but it's also biting the other hand than, on
    occasion, slaps you in the face.
    
    It is a form of expression of displeasure that should not be
    disallowed.
    
    --- jerry

    
    No offense taken Jerry, it is after all only a piece of semantics,
    though I suspect you are confusing the act of treason with the crime
    of High Treason.
    
    I was amused by your self description in the Gun Control note this
    morning, and so I'm not surprised that you disagree with me on this 
    matter also. In view of my personal name it shouldn't be a surprise 
    to folks that I belong to the "my country, love it or leave it" school 
    of thought, and that even though I'm not an American I am shocked
    that a person can defile their Nation and their nationality whilst 
    claiming the protection of the Constitution to sanctify their acts.
                                    
    My dictionary defines treason as a conscious and deliberate act by
    a citizen against the government of their country. Burning a flag may 
    be a very minor form of treason, but treason it remains. The rather
    more severe acts you perhaps have in mind are in fact the criminal
    activities known as "High Treason", which clearly flag burning isn't.
    
    (Incidentally the same dictionary reminds me that 'Petty Treason'
    is (or perhaps I should say, was) an act of a woman against her 
    husband... which shows that it is a rather old dictionary :-))
         
    /. Ian .\                      
                                        

    I propose that whereas the flag has no value anymore.
    and
    Whereas a dead serviceman's family is given an American flag to
    remember their (fill in the kin) by,
    that
    The sum of one billion US doallars in gold be given to the family
    instead. (note not dollars [ie maybe worthless] but gold).
    
    This would give the family something of value and would show the
    rest of us (through taxes to pay for it) the cost of human sacrafice
    and the value that now appears to be lost with the flag.
    
    PS: I was reciently in Normandy for the 45th celebration of D-Day.
        You must visit the cemetarys.
    
    Steve

    

        The financial mess in Mass. thrown at me each time I turn the
        TV on reminds me that the vote last November WAS correct.
        
        

    
    Ian,
    If treason is defined as "any act against the government" (paraphrasing
    I think), then it could be said that any act of protest against
    the government is treason, including peaceful demonstrations against
    government policies.
    
    Roberta

    Burning a flag is not an act against the country. It isn't even an act
    against the government.

    It's an act against a cloth rectangle.

    Anything more than that is in the eyes of the beholder. (If you find it
    objectionable, perhaps you should be jailed for what you're thinking -
    no, I guess I wouldn't go that far.)

    I have never been able to think of the flag as any more than a symbolic
    representation. The disgrace is that all of these high-paid politicians
    are spending our money debating such absurd trivia. (Then again, what's
    new?)

    Jay Leno suggested the simplest solution is to require all flags be
    made out of asbestos. Problem is, then all the safety organizations
    would be pulling them out of the schools...

    I think the way to deal with flag-burners is to enforce clean air
    legislation. Require catalytic converters, etc.

    re.40
    
    Steve, regarding the financial state of Mass: The US of A is in
    an even worse economic crisis. But they won't bite the bullet. Let's
    be real. But that's for another note.
    
    Before my grandmother died she gave me a gold watch. I loved that
    watch, not because it was gold, but because it reminded me of Grandma.
    My house was broken into and the watch stolen. I was sad at first
    but after thinking about it, the watch wasn't Grandma. She was still
    alive in my heart. If the person who stole this watch sees this
    he will probably be surprised that it wasn't *just a watch*. Moral
    of the story: A symbol is only a symbol if it's preceived as one.And
    symbols mean different things to different people.
    
    Kate
                                                          
    

    Re .37, if I have to find legal activities that I find more abhorrent
    than flag burning I can.  I find the sight of a person shooting
    a deer apalling.  I think hunting animals for sport should be illegal.
     I find the sight of a gun in a person's house revolting.  I think
    it should be illegal to own guns.  
    
    I think it is possible for a person to love their country, but to
    disagree with certain policies that are being carried out by the
    political leaders.  I agree with Jerry that burning the flag of
    your country as a form of protest against certain policies is perfectly
    acceptable and should be legal.
    
    Lorna
    
    
    

Re: .36

    I think we disagree over the importance on symbols, and whether an
    action  taken against a symbol is an action against the thing that
    it  symbolizes.  I  don't  believe in graven images (yes, that's a
    religious view.)

    Therefore I  don't  object  to  people  destroying  images  of, or
    symbols  of,  things  I  value.  If  you  burn me in effigy I will
    consider  it an insult, but one that you have every right to do. I
    will  object strenuously to an attempt to burn me. The first is an
    expression  of  an  opinion  that I disagree with (but protect the
    right to express it), the second an act of violence that should be
    illegal.

    A secondary disagreement is over the "love it or leave it" view of
    a  country.  I'm  a US citizen. I think the US is worth defending,
    but  I  also  believe  that there are a lot of government policies
    that are morally bankrupt or simply stupid. Stating that belief in
    the  strongest  terms  is  a  resposibility  of  the citizens in a
    democracy.   Burning   a  flag  to  protest  politicians  wrapping
    themselves  in  the flag rather than defend an indefensible action
    is  one  way  to  protest  bad  policies.  It is clearly effective
    (consider  the  amount  of publicity and discussion it generated),
    and does not involve any "clear and present" danger. Personally, I
    prefer  it  to  some  of  the  advirtisments  I've seen with flags
    appearing on all sorts of commercial products. A country's flag is
    a political symbol, not a commercial one.

--David

    
    re .45:
    
    I am also appaled by the sheer jingoism of politicians who abuse
    the flag and think that is morally reprehensible ...
    
    and as for using it in commerical messages: there are I believe
    countries were that it illegal.
    
    Anyway I'm going to let this topic lie fallow for a while, and I
    leave you with this thought: whether burning a flag is or is not,
    or even should be illegal, I believe that there should be a [criminal]
    offense of "bringing the nation into disrepute" the penalty for
    which should be revocation of citizenship. I believe that there
    are circumstances where a naturalised citizen can have their
    citizenship revoked for "un-American activity", and I would suggest
    that this should apply also to those who have their citizenship
    by right of birth.
                                                                          
    /. Ian .\
    

    re: .46  (Ian)
    
    � . . .I believe that there should be a [criminal] offense of 
    � "bringing the nation into disrepute". . .
    
    Interesting notion, Ian.  It seems to me, though, that defining
    that which brings a nation into "disrepute" would be extremely
    difficult; if nothing else, I think this discussion points up 
    the fact that people hold widely divergent views on what might
    be called "disreputable" behavior.  I think that if such a law were
    in place, disreputable actions would become any which the people 
    in power personally believed them to be.
    
    Steve

    Re: .46
    
    >I believe that there should be a [criminal] offense of "bringing the 
    >nation into disrepute"
    
    I would find that difficult to define, let alone enforce.  Let's see,
    the Viet Nam war protesters were probably guilty of bringing the nation
    into disrepute.  On the other hand, a lot of people believe that the
    Oliver North affair has brought the nation into disrepute.  Some
    believe the nation was brought into disrepute by the Russians making it
    into space first.  Certainly the civil rights riots and repressions
    brought the nation a great deal of disrepute.  Watergate brought the
    nation into disrepute; do we prosecute Nixon for doing it or the
    reporters for making the act public knowledge?

    
    �...  do we prosecute Nixon for doing it or the reporters for making
    �     the act public knowledge?
          
    sigh... I can't resist. The reporters are protected by the First
    amendment (freedom of the press). 
    
    As for the rest... 
    
    And judges have earned a living since Roman times and probably before 
    by interpreting laws that are subject to different interpretations. 
    Laws are written by legislators who usually are predominantly lawyers. 
    They write laws in such a way as to keep themselves and their friends
    in business.
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    Re: .49
    
    >The reporters are protected by the First amendment (freedom of the
    >press).
    
    But not all free speech is protected -- such as slander/libel or
    incitement to commit a crime.

    Slander and libel are not "protected free speech" because
    rights are inseparable from responsibilities. Freedom of
    speech implies the responsibility to speak the truth.

    
    quite so, though it seems rather hard to sue the US press for slander
    or libel since you apparently need to prove malice. In any event
    reporting the truth is neither sladnerous nor libellous.
    
    And you can't incite somebody to commit a crime after the fact.
                                                               
    /. Ian .\
    
    (now I'm going home - see you all tomorrow :-)
    

Bringing the nation into disrepute ...

There are quite a few countries in the world that do have such laws.  
Generally, they are the worst totalitarian and authoritarian regimes 
(of both the left and the right), and the laws are used as a brutal 
weapon for the silencing of dissent and the suppression of any criticism 
of the ruling establishment.

On the evidence to date, I suspect that such laws not only invite abuse, 
but practically guarantee it.  I am positively delighted that the United 
States has chosen not to join this club of abusers of human rights.

	-Neil

    How can they make a law against burning the flag?  From what I heard
    it's the only proper way to "retire" a flag that has served well,
     is old or frayed or torn....
    
    Also...I was discussing this with a friend last night.  They said
    that burning the flag felt kind of like shooting an eagle.  The
    bald eagle (that's the proper national symbol, right.....or is it
    a different subspecies of eagle?) is protected in this country,
    and if you shoot it, you go to jail.  Damaging a national symbol
    is damaging a national symbol.  
    
    I must admit, burning the flag takes on a variety of shades when
    the flag can be put on mugs, shirts, paper plates, sneakers, beach
    blankets, and posters.....so what is the "true" flag?  If we can't
    protect our "trademarked" national emblem from widespread overuse
    in marketing, how can we claim it is so politically/representatively
    sacred?  
    
    I also think George Bush should find better things to do with his
    time than working this issue....
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .54
    
    >The bald eagle (that's the proper national symbol, right.....or is it 
    >a different subspecies of eagle?) is protected in this country,
    
    Is the bald eagle protected because it's a national symbol or an
    endangered species?

    good question.  I believe that even if it is an endangered species, it
    is protected FAR more vehemently because it is a national symbol than
    other endangered species.  Also, the fines are MUCH more stiff for
    shooting a bald eagle than for shooting a snaildarter or a buffalo or
    ospreys or cutting wild ladyslippers or indian pipe plants (I'm not too
    up on my endangered speciess....but I think most of those are on the
    list).
    
    -Jody
    
    
     

    

                 Is burning dollar bills also illegal?  Why??

    Yes, defacing/destroying US currency is illegal.
    
    I don't know why....
    
    -Jody
    

    	I'm not sure exactly how things work, but destroying currency *is*
    illegal (unless you're the US Treasury department) but on the other
    hand, those stupid machines that make medallions out of squashed
    pennies claim that it's legal.
    
    	So, either the laws have changed since I first learned them, or
    they figure that if you want to burn mony, it's your loss...
    
    						--D

>                 Is burning dollar bills also illegal?  Why??

No. The monetary and coinage laws say(paraphrased) you may do anything you
wish with your money including deface it, as long as it is not done with 
intent to commit fraud.
making jewlry from old coins for example is legal, burning money(it's your 
loss) is legal, altering a one to pass as a ten is punishible by upto 20 
years in jail.(almost as much as George wants flag burners to serve).

Money is not a symbol of the country in the sense the flag is. although some
feel it is the symbol of America :-}

RE: Eagles
Protected as an endangered species. special legislation was passed making the
fines higher for killing eagles(all types) because the law was being totally
ignored and the eagles were declining faster as a species than almost any 
other endangered species. and, yes national symbolism probably did play a part 
in that.

PS. how in the world do you shoot a snail-darter? they are so small, they make
lousy targets. :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Amos-who-never-shot-a-buffalo-or-eagle-either

    Back to the flag for a moment..
    
    For ME it's an emotional issue, not a political one.  Personally,
    no;  I don't like to see someone burning our flag;  I think it's 
    disrespectful.  (But then I wouldn't buy a t-shirt the other day that
    had a flag on it!)
    
    However, I don't want to see it go into law that you CAN'T burn the 
    flag.  As some other noters mentioned, what happens next??
    
    But what really bothers me is all the focus Bush is putting on this
    rather small issue.  What's happening to the BIG ones?  A smokescreen
    like this one can hide a lot, doncha think?
    
    Jane  
        

    Let's face it, the flag is merely a symbol.  When used by the
    republican's in ways which I find distasteful it's considered
    patriotic.  When Abbie Hoffman wrapped himself in the flag in the 60s
    it was considered something akin to treason and highly disrespectful. 
    It all depends on who's in power and who isn't ...
    
    This is simply a good political ploy on the part of George (and those
    fawning sycophants in Congress) to try and garner political brownie
    points.  I firmly believe in the right to deface the flag as a means of
    political protest.

    
    OK: my thought for the day - consider the fuss elsewhere in this
    conference about a demonstration against abuse by fathers held on
    Fathers' Day.
    
    Now how would the conference view a political flag burning on Flag Day?
                                                                      
    /. Ian .\
    

    
    Re .44 (Lorna).
    
    I'm not sure how to take this note - so I spent a night thinking
    about it. Let me maek two comments:-
    
    1) I personally agree with you about sport hunting.
    
    2) The 2nd Amendment of the constitution enshrines the right to
    own, bear (and presumably use) firearms.
    
    In view of the second are you really saying (as you appear to be)
    that one can be selective as to which parts of the Constitution
    should be immune to possible amendment or moderation? (ie the 1st
    Amendment is inalienable, immutable and eternal whilst the 2nd should
    be repealed?) I would put it to you that once you establish a chink
    in the Bill of Rights by repealing one of the basic rights the
    foundation of the remainder is somewhat shaky to say the least.
                                                                   
    /. Ian .\
    

    ...seems to me you cannot burn a piece of cloth without spending
    one year in jail ..... but you can go to foreign countries in the
    name of your flag and kill people there, produce atomic weapons,
    export weapons to third world countries, and...and...and.
    
    Who goes to jail for that?
    
    BY the way: I'm not talking only about the US, I'm talking about
    most countries, socialistic and capitalistic ones.
    
    Do you know that there is no death penalty for under 21 year old
    persons in the USSSR? 
    
    sascha
    

    Respect needs to be earned.  If you need to force someone to respect
    you, I don't call that respect.
    
    It is amusing to see how some people seems to be all for freedom
    of press and all that when a single author manages to insult one
    of the largest religion in the world but when someone insults THEIR
    symbols, they want blood.
    
    - Vikas

    
    Vikas,
    
    Salman Rushdie lives in Britain: "Satanic Verses" insults Britain,
    ore religous and political systems yet we didn't complain. Despite
    the fact that Britain doesn't have 'freedom of the press' or 'freedom
    of speech' he was allowed to say what he said in the name of art...
    
    as for the rest... if the Ayatollah hadn't told his followers that
    they should feel insulted would the book have become a best seller?
    
    /. Ian .\
    (who fell asleep reading the boring book)

    
    re:.63
    great idea! but i think i'll wait until they actually try to pass
    the ammendment here in the socialist state of washington
    

    
    Ian,
    
    You did such a service by posting the first amendment. Do you happen
    to have the second one available to be typed in?
    (I'm serious).
    
    I think there's something in there like:  it being the right of
    the state to have an armed malicia, the people have the right to
    bear arms. In other words, not the people individually, but the
    states.                                   
    
    So the difference is that, under that interpretation of the 2nd
    amendment, you don't have to create another amendment to legislate
    gun control (as the courts have already shown), but under the current
    interpretation of the _first_ amendment, you would have to create
    another amendment to legislate, er, um, flag control.
    
    Roberta                                  

    militia or malicia?
    

Re:  .69

>   Do you happen to have the second [amendment] available to be typed in?
>   (I'm serious).

Time out, folks.  This is the flag control note.  The gun control note is
elsewhere in this conference.  Can we try to stick to the topic?

If you'd like to enter the second amendment text in the gun control note, that
would make sense.

						--Q

    re .67 >he was allowed to say what he said
                   =======
    
    Ian, that's the difference between a British citizen and an
    American - the idea of being "permitted" to say what I
    think is repugnant to me on a gut level. You take a certain
    amount of authority for granted. Here we take our "right"
    of free speech for granted. (Often to our detriment.)
    
    Dana

    Re .71, don't be a fool, Steve.  I'm scared of speaking in public.
     How could I hold public office?  Besides I don't even feel like
    holding public office, and I hardly ever do anything I don't feel
    like doing.
    
    Lorna
    

.75 is a reply to this note from Eagles:

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 673.71                       Oh George...                          71 of 75
AERIE::THOMPSON "tryin' real hard to adjust..."      14 lines  30-JUN-1989 13:49
                    -< Angry ANTI-<whatever> Loses Votes ! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .64, re: .44	a serious problem or difference of opinion?

    Anybody has the right to find those of us who shoot and who hunt
    to be disgusting brutal beasts and their first amendment rights
    allow them to dump whatever insults and stress they wish upon us.

    There also exist in the broad spectrum of feminity those women who
    fought beside the pioneers, shoot beside us competitively and who
    gut their own fresh-caught fish.  Obviously the world is large and
    diverse enough that each may find their own space.  Of course such
    differences is why we seek a government of laws rather than people
    because the next person to hold high office might be Lorna ...

    ~--e--~  Old_Eagles_Won't_Live_2_C_Uncompromising_Women_Gain_Office

    
    i would vote for ms. st. hilaire for any office for which she cared
    to run.
    

    enough snideness and minor personal jabs.
        
    Let's get back with the topic...

    -Jody
    

    Re Ian, .64, the only reason I mentioned sport hunting and guns
    was because before when I had mentioned sights that would sicken
    me more than seeing the American flag burned, you came back and
    commented that the things that I had mentioned were *illegal*, so I felt
    I should mention a couple of *legal* things that disturb me more
    than flag burning - thus - sport hunting and guns.  
    
    Well, I'm glad you agree with me about sport hunting anyway.  (Who
    would have dreamed we'd agree on anything?!)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .69, Roberta, Coming right up (courtesy of soapbox note 10.)
    re .72, OK, Q, it'll go over in the gun note (210 or 218).
    
    DougO

    What upsets me most over the flag flap is that all the energy that is
    going into it is _NOT_ being used to push causes that are far more
    worthy of attention. George Bush is screaming to pass an anti-flag
    burning amendment. He is not screaming to pass the ERA amendment, or
    for increases in day care, child and maternal health benefits, or for
    enforcement of existing discrimination laws, etc., etc. 
                      
    And if the senators want to stay up all night and preach about their
    love of the flag, fine. Let them also stay up all night and try to
    get some other issues passed.
    
    Bruce

    
    Q is right, but I wasn't trying to create a tangent. I was trying
    to make a point about the difference between the first and second
    amendments. 
    
    Also I meant militia.
    
    God I HATE spelling errors. I pride myself on usually not making
    them.
   
    re: the difference between being permitted to speak and having a
    right to speak:
    
    Isn't the whole idea of the constitution that any rights that aren't
    _explicitly_ given to the government are those of the people? 
    
    Roberta 
    

    re .78:  Ok, I'll go!  First note in Womannotes... (!)
    
    Seems to me that we have done fairly well as a country for two
    centuries without explicitly banning flag burning.   People as a whole
    in America don't necessarily love all of the people in our government,
    but we do uphold the ideal of democracy, in general.
    
    The flag is a SYMBOL of the country.  We are constitutionally allowed
    in this democracy (as far as I know) to disapprove of the actions of
    our country and to publicly register that disapproval.  Because we are
    discouraged from registering disapproval with direct physical violence,
    we express it using symbols for how we are feeling.  Words are symbols;
    buttons are symbols; placards are symbols; bras are symbols; flags are
    symbols.  I think that if you are truly angry with the USA, burning the
    flag of the USA simply acts as a visual symbol to express the disgust
    that you are feeling.  I would rather have someone publicly burn a flag
    at a rally -- to show anger symbolically -- than surreptitiouly plant a
    bomb in a populated area -- to show anger physically.  (I know,
    wouldn't we all...)
    
    I guess the next question is:  is flag-burning considered an incitement
    to violence?  I don't think so.  I think that it is an act of protest,
    not an intrinsic call to violence.  For instance, "burn the flag" is
    NOT and to my knowledge never has been a code or slang phrase for
    "let's bring down the government using guns and bombs and institute
    anarchy." It IS a code for "I'm angry about the actions of my country."
    
    To me, Bush's initiative to bar a non-violent (in the sense that nobody
    is physically hurt) means of protest like burning a flag is stupid,
    given that Bush equally fervently protects the constitutional right to
    bear arms. :-) 
    
    			However, another point:  
    
    Those who argue that Bush is right to call for a constitutional
    amendment banning flag burning have not addressed seriously one of the
    basic points of the original note:
    
    	Why is banning flag-burning suddenly so important?
    
    There's been relative silence from the White House since Bush	
    came to office.  Why has Bush come out from the corner swinging at the
    constitution, trying to start a campaign to outlaw flag burning?  Why
    is this suddenly a critical issue?  We've lasted OK for 200 years
    without it!
    
    Right or wrong, there is a crisis of confidence in the morality of our
    political leaders.  
    	-- Why do I feel cynical about the support of these political
    	leaders for a squeaky-clean issue like protecting our "sacred" flag?
    
    Regardless of assigning blame, there are domestic problems with banks,
    with local crime, with not enough affordable housing, with declining
    education, and a host of other problems.  There are foreign affairs
    problems with wars, with trade sanctions, with international debt.  
    Reagan and Bush did not create all of these problems, but they have not
    solved them either.	
    	-- Why IS burning the flag elevated to a MAJOR issue?  Do you agree
    	perhaps there are a few other issues that might be worthy of the
    	personal attention of the president of the United States?
    
    
    Oh, well.  I'm off to have a happy Fourth of July weekend! (!)

    
    
      I may be wrong, but I believe quite a few seats are up for
    grabs in next years congressional elections. Wouldn't you
    love to have your opponent on film stating that it's o.k.
    to burn our dearly beloved flag? I can imagine the same
    kind of Bullsh*it commercials Bush was airing. It's one
    thing to be patriotic but to rally round the flag to get
    elected, and use a symbol for personal gain while exhorting
    "I'm for America" is hypocrisy in one of it's worse
    forms. I am truly disgusted by this whole affair.
    
    John

    
    .83 makes a claim (probably correctly) that in America you have
    the right to both disapprove of the Government and to voice that
    disapproval. My probably naif point is that taken literally the
    Constitution only gives you the right to say you disapprove, and
    to publish the text of said disapproval in "the press". 
    
    Anything else is subsequent interpretation.
                         
    I have not seen the phrase "symbolic speech" *anywhere* in the text
    of the Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution or the Declaration
    of Independance.
            
    What is the difference between America and Britain? well we have
    neither freedom of the press nor freedom of speech enshrined in
    law, and in theory at least a person who spoke against the government
    *could* find themselves in the courts answering charges of sedition
    and conspiracy to commit High Treason...
    
    The first amendment was written in memory of the fact that several
    thinkers promoting the ideas of freedom in the American colonies
    had been jailed in Britain for sedition... it was clearly felt that
    such a thing should not be allowed to happen again. The First amendment
    quite clearly enumerates the offences for which people had been
    jailed: preaching without a licence (ie proposing methodism or other
    non-orthodox religions), failing to attend Church of England services
    (hence they desired no state religion) public sedition (hence the
    freedom of speech requirement) and publishing reports of parliamentary
    speeches and other material contrary to government desires to limit
    the dissemination of information - an early attempt at counter
    propaganda (hence freedom of the press). However I am unaware of
    any desire to permit what in British law of the time was known as
    "riotous assembly", and "seditious behaviour" (burning a flag would
    be the latter, standing in a group chanting anti-government slogans
    would be the former).
    
    Another difference I suspect is that if a group of long-haired hippies
    burnt a Union Flag in a political protest in Britain it would be
    unlikely to get air time in the United States. On the other hand
    the Texas incident got headline coverage here... It may not have
    been *intended* to bring the country into disrepute, but it is
    indisputable that it did in fact make America look silly.
                    
    /. Ian .\
    
    PS: I'll post the second amendment in the guns note, however I do
    think it worth noting that the word "militia" in the second amendment
    is "interpreted" as often and as deviously as the word "speech"
    in the first amendment is interpreted... and that if the word speech
    can be extended to include the act of burning a flag, then militia
    can be extended to include all able bodied adults in the United
    States.
    
    
    

    re Ian's .85:
    
>    My probably naif point is that taken literally the
>    Constitution only gives you the right to say you disapprove, and
>    to publish the text of said disapproval in "the press". 
>    
>    Anything else is subsequent interpretation.
                         
    As an English citizen, Ian is undoubtedly aware of the fact that
    many of the most important elements of the English constitution are
    nowhere to be found in legislation, but rather are the product of
    800 years of judicial interpretation and construction.
    
    It may be less obvious in the United States, where we do have a
    written constitution; but the actual constitution of the United
    States is not just a written document, but the product of 200 years
    of judicial interpretation and construction of that document.
    
    	-Neil

    
    Indeed Neil you are quite right: however... In British constitutional
    law anything that is the result of an interpretation can be set
    aside by a new law. An old law can be repealed explicitly or indeed
    made obsolete by newer laws and interpretations (thus the law requiring
    all parish priests to provide a ground for the practice of archery
    on a Sunday is considered to be archaic and obsolescent because
    of newer legislation, though in fact it has never been repealed,
    nor has the law requiring the church to provide a secure storage
    for arms, nor the law requiring adult males to practice every week
    or pay a one shilling (�0.05) fine).
                                                    
    This raises the following question: the Supreme Court have ruled
    that current interpretation of the First Amendment protects flag
    burning as "symbolic speech" and that hence *states* cannot pass
    laws making it a punishable offense. But is it true that you then
    need a Constitutional Amendment to alter this state of affairs,
    or is it sufficient to pass a Federal law (say one making it a federal
    offence to bring the nation into disrepute). I don't see any difference
    between this, and say the Metzenbaum bill to limit the interpretation
    of the Second Amendment by making certain classes of firearms
    illegal...                          
             
    Perhaps all this is just a smokescreen to cover the incipient scandal
    over white house staff using credit cards to pay for rent-boys?
    
    /. Ian .\                                                      
    
    

    The Supreme Court generally works with more than `mere'
    interpretations.  They use the notes taken by the framers of
    the Constitution during the creation process, so that they
    actually know what "speech" and "militia" were intended to
    mean by the men who did the original work.
    
    Ian (and 99.9+% of the American population) can not be expected
    to know this.
    
    						Ann B.

Where the Supreme Court has reached a decision based on an interpretation of
a statute, this can be overturned by the Congress, since Congress's judgment
of its intentions in passing a statute presumably takes precedence over the
Court's. (*)

Similarly, Congress can always override a decision based on the common law,
since common law can be modified or revoked through explicit statutory law.

However, since the Consitution takes precedence over statutory law, and is 
not subject to amendment by Congress alone, the Supreme Court's interpretation
of the Constitution is paramount, and is not subject to revision by the
Congress.  Otherwise, Congress could bypass the amendment mechanism by
"reinterpreting" the Constitution.  In essence, the Supreme Court is the
sole guardian of the Constitution.

Of course, this does not keep the Congress from coming up with schemes of 
various degrees of subtlety and cleverness for trying to work around the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, without challenging
it head on.

	-Neil

    As Ian  points  out,  all  this  is  a smoke screen. I don't think
    anyone  really  believes  that  flag  burning is the most pressing
    issue of the day. It is one of the easiest to get the public riled
    up about.

    According to an article by Lawrence Tribe, one of the reasons that
    the  Court  ruled  the  Texas  law  unconstitutional  is  that  it
    prohibited burning the flag "so as to give offence", which implies
    that  it  is only illegal if used to express certain ideas. If the
    law  were to prohibit burning the flag except in a prescribed way,
    he thinks it would be acceptable.

--David

    re .90
    Yes, as Ian points out (as well as others, such as .0, .61, .62, and me
    in  .83, to name a few), the timing of this "outcry against
    flag-burning" is a little questionable.  Now if George et al. are into
    Constitutional amendments these days, I've got one to suggest they
    throw their full weight behind...   :-)
    
    About it being acceptable to burn the flag in some instances, .16 and
    .20 noted that burning a flag is the only acceptable way of disposing
    of one that is worn-out or ripped -- it should never touch the ground
    or be "defiled."  In that case, burning the flag is a sign of highest
    respect for the country.  Odd, isn't it?
    
    
    Anyway, this whole debate is now simple media hype in my mind compared
    to the real feelings unleashed by the recent Supreme Court decision on
    abortion (a matter for another note).  I'll be interested to see who in
    our government is willing to stand up and be counted in opposition to
    *that* decision.   

re Note 673.91 by CADSYS::PSMITH:

>     In that case, burning the flag is a sign of highest
>     respect for the country.  Odd, isn't it?
  
        In yesterday's paper, I was shocked to see a picture of a
        young man who had an image of the flag carved into his short
        hair-cut.  He apparently did this to protest the Supreme
        Court ruling and to support the sacredness of the flag.  I
        thought it was disgusting.  One of the problems of
        legislating in this area is that a person's perception of an
        act is so tied up in issues of taste, tradition, and personal
        values.

        I can understand that some people are totally outraged that
        an offense against the flag would be protected by the
        Supreme Court.  I can understand that they would think that
        the flag is a unique symbol of our nation.

        The reason I can understand this is that I too am outraged. 
        I am outraged that anyone who loves this country would tamper
        with the First Amendment.  I don't believe that any true
        patriot would restrict, in the Constitution no less, a
        harmless act merely because it offends.

        When I think of the things that are central to what makes
        this country uniquely great, I think of the first paragraph
        of the Declaration of Independence, and I think of the First
        Amendment to the Constitution.  Those few words, and the
        tradition of respect given to them over the years, even to
        the point where our officials have protected the rights of
        those whose expression is repugnant to them, is to me the
        unique symbol of the United States.

        I hope that there are a growing number of true conservatives
        in this country who are fed-up with the actions of today's
        so-called conservatives.  We need to tell the Regan-Bush
        party that we, too, are "mad as hell and not going to take it
        anymore".

        Bob

    I heard a riddle from a letter to All Things Considered on NPR:
    
    Question:
    What's the difference between Gregory Johnson (of the flag-burning
    case) and Ollie North?
    
    Answer:
    Gregory Johnson hid behind the Constitution and desecrated the flag;
    Ollie North wrapped himself in the flag and defied the Constitution!
    
    Nancy

      The flag issue is a ruse to incite the public and get Bush a sure
      fire issue for support by those who consider symbols more
      important than realities.

      As a woman I find it more of a problem that every time we say we
      are trying to uphold what the framers of the constitution really
      meant, I know that I'm not included. The fathers of our country
      wanted freedoms for white landowning males and women weren't even
      considered as having a vote. liesl

    	RE: .94  liesl
    
    	> As a woman I find it more of a problem that every time we say we
        > are trying to uphold what the framers of the constitution really
        > meant, I know that I'm not included.
    
    	Yes, that bothers me, too.
    
    	In another conference, they reprinted the Declaration Of
    	Independence on July 4th, and some talked about what an inspiring
    	piece of writing it was.
    
    	I started reading it (it had been awhile since I had seen the whole
    	thing,) but I had to stop when I got to the part where it said
    	that "all Men" were created equal (because I was reminded that
    	this document was NOT talking about me, or people like me, as
    	being equal.)
    
    	The whole thing rings so hollow when one reads it knowing that
    	it was *never* intended to provide for everyone, but only for a
    	certain few.

    
    I'am an American Indian and you want to belittle a Document that
    protects the right and freedoms of every Amercian Citizen;
    Can you name another country that'll shape freedoms and
    laws around the voice of the people ??
    
    And whose problem is it if your "voice" isn't being heard
    or your interests are being considered?? YOURS.
    A Represenative can't "act" on things people don't tell him/her
    about.
    
    And How can anyone born in this Country enjoy watching our
    Flag being burned??  
    
    --Christopher

    Re .-1
>    Can you name another country that'll shape freedoms and
>    laws around the voice of the people ??
    
    Doesn't any democracy do this (to a greater or lesser extent)?  Of
    course, in some countries it is easier for "the voice of the people" to
    change freedoms and laws more easily than in others - here in the US,
    the constitution provides a brake on this process, making it much
    harder for the "voice of the people" to tinker with those laws and
    freedoms that the founders considered to be of special merit.  In this
    respect, it is sometimes easier to shape freedoms and laws around the
    voice of the people in countries that don't have such a firm basis of
    constitutional law.  It is not always desirable to allow laws to be
    easily changed to suit the mood of the day.
    
>    And whose problem is it if your "voice" isn't being heard
>    or your interests are being considered?? YOURS.
>    A Represenative can't "act" on things people don't tell him/her
>    about.
    
    I think you may have mis-read the earlier notes.  They were referring
    to the constitution, and its original intentions, not to the lack or
    otherwise of representation of any particular viewpoint in politics
    today.
    
>    And How can anyone born in this Country enjoy watching our
>    Flag being burned??  
    
    The question isn't whether it's distasteful, but whether it should be
    illegal or unconstitutional.
    
    John

    re:.96
    
    	� And How can anyone born in this Country enjoy
    	  watching our Flag being burned?? �
    
    Who said anything about it being enjoyable to watch?  Whether I
    like seeing a flag being burned or not is completely irrelevant.
    I still believe that the very concepts this country is founded
    on gives anyone the freedom to burn the flag if he or she wants
    to. To hold that a piece of cloth is too sacred to allow such an
    activity is a restriction of the very freedoms that that piece of
    cloth stands for.
    
    One doesn't have to approve of something to allow it.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: .97
    Hi John
    >> Doesn't any democracy do that ??
    
    No. In the case of Governments that become "Democracies"
    (Honduras is latest example), The U.S. Military is the first
    glimpse of "democracy" that converts see, followed by the
    CIA and State Department represenatives.
    In most cases they adopt policy given to them by the
    United States.
    
    >> Its not desirable to allow laws to be easily changed to suit
       the mood of the day.
    
    Well said.
    
    RE: .98
    Hi
    >> To hold that a "piece of cloth" is too sacred to allow such 
       an activity is a restriction of the very freedoms that
       the "cloth" stands for.
    
    The American flag is more than a "piece of cloth".
    It is a symbol of past Hardships
                   present Struggles
                and future Hope
    
    It is not sacred. It is, as a symbol, however, a sign
    of great comfort and strength to those around the world
    who are less fortunate, to those who dream for more
    than what their country can provide.
    
    The American flag represents freedom for those who live
    here, and represents Promise of freedom for those who
    don't.
    
    When the American Flag is burnt by Iranians, do you think
    they do it because we hold it sacred ?? 
    Hell no, they know what it represents to most people.
    
    In America burning the flag isn't disallowed because its
    "sacred", but because of what it represents or should
    I say, what it suppose to represent.
    
    --Christopher

    Re .99
>    >> Doesn't any democracy do that ??
    
>    No. In the case of Governments that become "Democracies"
>    (Honduras is latest example), The U.S. Military is the first
>    glimpse of "democracy" that converts see, followed by the
>    CIA and State Department represenatives.

Democracy doesn't require the presence of US military, the CIA or the State
department.  Most of western Europe managed to achieve democracy without
aid from any of these bodies.

I used the word democracy to mean "1. A form of government in which
political power resides in all the people and is exercised by them directly
or is given to elected representatives.  2. A state so governed" (I looked
it up in my Funk and Wagnall :-).  Not every country that refers to itself
as "a democracy" is a true democracy.  In particalar, many countries call
themselves "Democratic Republics".  This is often a euphemism for a
totalitarian state.

    RE: .100
    I've no problem with the definition of a Democracy.
    You are right in saying not every country that refers to itself
    as a Democracy is such.
    
    >> Democracy doesn't require the presence of U.S. Military,
       CIA or the State Department
    
       I used the Honduras as my example. In this case and
       others the process of moving to a Democractic State
       did require U.S presence to facilitate the necessary
       changes.
    
    >> Western europe managed to achieve democracy without aid
       from these bodies
    
       U.S. political fabric has been woven very tightly
       in Western Europe for along time beit acknowledged
       as aid or not.
    
   John, does Funk and Wagnal's cover proposed Econmomic reforms
   in Hungary and Poland??  (-: (-:
    
    --Christopher             

    
      �  >> Western europe managed to achieve democracy without aid
      �     from these bodies
    
      � U.S. political fabric has been woven very tightly
      � in Western Europe for along time beit acknowledged
      � as aid or not.
       
    I'm going  to take a 24 hour cooling off period before replying
    to that one.
    
    Suffice it to say that the only country in Western Europe (and neither
    Hungary nor Poland are in Western Europe) that has been overtly
    influenced by the US system of government is West Germany, and then
    only since World War II, which being only 44 years ago hardly qualifies
    as "a long time".
              
    It would be more realistic to say that Western Europe (as the source
    of a goodly percentage of the emigrants to America last century,
    and as the previous colonial owner of the landmass of the present
    USA) has supplied almost all of the material from which the American
    political fabric is woven.
    
    /. Ian .\

    RE: .102
    
    I never said Hungary or Poland were in Western Europe
    my question to John was if the Funk and Wagnal's
    definition for Democracy included Economic reforms
    being considered by Poland and Hungary ... both are
    Eastern European Communist countries
    
    Now that you know I know that ...
    
    --Christopher

    
    Somehow I had the impression that you probably did know where they
    are. All we have now proved is that we are both capable of confusing
    our flow by mixing rhetorical comments about emergent proto-democracies
    with a highly contentious claim that America contributed to the
    democratic forms and structures of the free nations of Western Europe.
    
    anyway I've cooled down now: I now think you are merely wrong...
                      
    pax?
    
    /. Ian .\
    

    It isn't the flag thats sacred, its the democracy that it represents
    that is sacred to most of us.  Don't distroy the constitution (the
    substance of our way of life), to protect the symbol of our way
    of life.  
    
    No one is advocating we go out and burn flags, we are rather saying,
    "leave our constitution alone".
    
    Mary

    re .105, Mary-
    
    I hope nobody thinks this is a nit, though it may look like one.
    
    > It isn't the flag thats sacred, its the democracy that it represents
    > that is sacred to most of us.
    
    We live in a REPUBLIC.  There *is* a difference.
    
    DougO 

    re .106 (DougO)
    
    According to the definitions I've seen, the US is both a democracy
    _and_ a republic.  A republic is to do with sovereignty (which in a
    republic lies with the people), while a democracy specifies how power
    is exercised (which in a democracy is by the people or their elected
    representatives).
    
    John

    re .107, John-
    
    My office desktop dictionary gave definitions that are nearly
    indistinguishable from each other when I looked it up after 
    your note.  I had always understood a democracy to be a state
    wherein the power is directly vested in and exercised by the
    people, *not* their elected representatives; a republic has the
    power vested in the electorate (not necessarily all the people)
    but exercised by representatives.  A pure democracy, in my mind,
    translates to mob rule or the tyranny of the majority, and was
    something the founders of this country explicitly tried to prevent.
    
    I will try to establish from which sources I derived these definitions;
    I suspect it came from my readings of the Federalist papers of 200+
    years ago.  It is possible that common usage has watered down the
    distinctions in the intervening time span.  (I hesitate to accept the
    blending of two such distinct concepts, but as Mr Language Person would
    probably tell me, Tough Luck.)  Perhaps I owe Mary an apology! 
    Certainly I was hasty, and will do some research.
    
    I am reminded of the anecdote told of Ben Franklin, who, when asked
    about what kind of country this "Constitutional Convention" had shaped,
    replied "A republic, madame, if you can keep it."
    
    When I see the hash made of the distinction between "republic"
    and "democracy" I understand his concern.  Now, more than ever.
    
    Thanks for entering your note in a manner that suggested I'd better
    check my sources.
    
    DougO

From: [email protected] (Bill Kinnersley)
Subject: Flag Burning--Some Safe Alternatives
Sender: [email protected]
 

Current opinion is widely divided on the subject of American flag
burning.  In order to help bridge the gap, I wish to offer a few
helpful suggestions.
 
First, on the subject of whether flag burning should be legal
or not, I believe that a compromise can be found--yes, legalize flag
burning, but regulate it closely.  For example:
 
 
o The flag burner must be at least 21 years of age,
  or in the company of a responsible adult.
 
o Not after 10 PM at night, or before 8 AM.
 
o Never on Sunday.
 
o Temporary "Emergency Flag Burning Ban" to take effect during
  prolonged dry spells.
 
The long-term solution will be to require all flags manufactured after 1990
to be treated with a fire retardant chemical.

 
 
For those intent on exercising their First Amendment Rights, the
above measures will represent a challenge.  However I would remind them
that the flag is but one symbol of the United States among many, and
encourage them to find other more creative ways of desecrating our
cherished traditions.
 
 
o Draw a moustache on George Washington.
 
o Paste Alfred E. Newman on one dollar bills.
 
o Drink English tea.
 
o Stick pins in a model of the Statue of Liberty.
 
o Take a scissors to the Constitution.
 
o Attend a soccer game.
 
o Smash the Great Seal.
 
o Put toupees on bald eagles.
 
o Boycott apple pie.
 

RE: .108

>    I suspect it came from my readings of the Federalist papers of 200+
>    years ago.

    Gee, DougO, I didn't realize that you were *that* old :-)

--David

    I've been having this annoying thought about the hoopla associated
    with the flag burning decision.  Lots of people are talking about
    it, pro and con.  Particularly, lots of legislators are talking
    about it; they're spending a lot of their time and energy focused
    on this issue.  Ultimately, this costs the taxpayers money, so,
    in the end, something will happen - constitutional amendment, various
    state laws, whatever.  
    
    Having taken up all this legislative time and energy will have cost 
    us a bundle.  And, for all that money, whatever it ends up being, not 
    one individual will be less hungry, better clothed, more educated, or
    safer on the streets; not one person's life will be physically improved 
    by the outcome, whatever it may be.  It appears to me that in the
    end, what spending this money will yield is that some people will
    have a "good" feeling about the way things are going and other's
    will have a "bad" feeling.
    
    Steve

re .111, My cynical view of things is that, if we look at the things congress
actually does (rather than what we wish they would do) an active, energetic 
congress is one of the greatest threats to the well-being of this country.
From that perspective, anything that keeps congress distracted and "out of
mischief" must be worth while.  The return on the investment is all of the
worse things that might have happened instead, but didn't.

	-Neil

        Another way I look at it:

        If the flag created by Betsy and George (the earlier George)
        over 200 years ago had been different, if, for example, it
        had yellow instead of white stars, or if the stars had seven
        points, or if the stripes ran vertically, the country we have
        today would be the same.  Our citizens and especially our war
        veterans would feel the same towards that flag as they feel
        to the one we did get.

        If, however, the First Amendment of 200 years ago had been
        written in weaker or less sweeping language, or, worse yet, if
        it had not been written at all, then I believe we would have
        a VERY different country today.

        Which is more important?

        Bob

    What I find amusing/interesting about the whole flag-burning Amendment
    issue is that there is all this effort to create an amendmant to
    the constituion to prevent the burning of the flag, and yet the
    ERA amendment is in no-where land.
    
    I like the flag and all that but still--
    
    Kinda makes one wonder....
    
    --kim

    re:.99
    
    	� The American flag is more than a "piece of cloth". �
    
    It's a piece of cloth. You burn it, and what's left is a pile of
    ashes indistinguishable from a pile of ashes made by a burned
    pair of Levis.
    
    Burning the American flag will not cause our nation to crumble
    into ruin. You can destroy each and every copy of the American
    flag to be found in the world, and it won't be the end of our
    country. The flags can be replaced with new flags.
    
    Yes, the flag represents out "past struggles" and all that. And
    one of the things we struggled for was so that each individual
    could express his opinion in whatever way he felt was necessary.
    The very ability to express an opinion in the form of burning
    the flag, no matter how offensive it may be to however many people,
    is part and parcel of that which we fought so hard for. To deny
    that right is *against* everything the flag stands for. It makes
    the promise of American liberty an empty lie. It says, "You can
    express yourself in any way you like, as long as we approve."
    
    Burning a flag will not topple America, but to deny anyone the
    freedom to burn a flag will.
    
    Does the idea of someone burning the flag offend you?  Fine, that
    is your business. That someone can stand up on a platform and
    speak in public about the inferiority of blacks or Jews, or
    fill-in-the-blank-minority offends me and untold millions of
    other people, and yet we as a people also recognize the right,
    the freedom to let such a person speak his mind regardless of
    how much we are offended. Why should we act any differently
    about someone who burns a flag?  As I said, a burned flag can
    be replaced, but once that freedom is gone, it'll be damned
    hard to win it back.
    
    --- jerry

    How do they propose that people dispose of worn-out flags?
    Traditionally they have been burned.
    
    When I was a Girl Scout (1957-1972 or so), I heard many times that
    the only *respectful* way to dispose of a worn out flag was to burn
    it.  There was also some folklore about "if a flag was ever allowed
    to touch the ground, you have to burn it", but I never saw anyone
    actually do this if the kids dropped the flag while putting it up.
    
    So is this kind of burning different, or do they have a new method?
    
    Holly
    who hasn't really been following this on in the media...
    

    I Love my country. I don't agree with every thing it does but I
    don't need/have to burn a flag to express that either. Freedom is
    the RIGHT to EXPRESS YOURSELF. Is is not the RIGHT to OFEND. I'm
    sure that if anyone wanted to express their opinion there are at
    least as many ways to do it as there are opinions. Why not burn
    a look-a-like flag?? It stills gets the point across about how someone
    may feel. 
    
    Ben

    re:.116
    
    I think the difference is in intent. I don't think it's hard to
    distinguish between someone burning a flag because it's worn as
    opposed to burning it in protest.
    
    Flag-burning as a form of protest was pretty common back in the
    anti-war 60's. No one took any special note of it then. Why the
    big brouhaha about it now?
    
    re:.117
    
    	� I Love my country. �
    
    So do I.
    
    	� I don't agree with every thing it does but I don't
    	need/have to burn a flag to express that either. �
    
    Neither do I. But that's not the point. It doesn't matter if *I*
    don't feel the need to burn a flag to make a statement. It doesn't
    matter if *you* don't feel the need to burn a flag to make a
    statement. As long as there are *some* people out there who feel
    that need, then they should be allowed to do it.
    
    It's similar to the question of censorship. Whether you dislike
    pornography is irrelevant to the question of whether those that *do*
    like it should be allowed to read it.
    
    	� Freedom is the RIGHT to EXPRESS YOURSELF. Is is not the
    	RIGHT to OFEND. �
    
    I don't think there's a single act that anyone can come up with
    that isn't offensive to *someone*. Do you feel that freedom of
    speech or freedom of religion is a bad thing?  Do you feel that
    people should not be able to speak their opinions, when those
    opinions are undoubtedly offensive to others?  Do you feel that
    some people should not be allowed to follow religious practices
    that are offensive to others?
    
    The very point of freedom of expression is to allow those with a
    minority view their freedom to express it, regardless of whether
    that view is offensive to others.
    
    	� Why not burn a look-a-like flag?? It stills gets the
    	point across about how someone may feel. �
    
    I don't see the difference. Is there something magical about a piece
    of cloth with the stars and stripes printed on it that's somehow
    different than a piece of paper with the same image printed on it?
    It seems to me that it's the *image* of the stars and stripes that
    really symbolizes American liberty and not the piece of cloth that
    bears the image.
    
    --- jerry

    
    	In my opinion, I think the goverment will on this issue
    	be just like so many things, once they start, THERE WILL
    	BE NO END TO IT!!
    
    	TODAY:	Ban BURNING the flag!
    
    		TOMMOROW:  Ban TALKING bad about the flag or country.
    
    			NEXT WEEK:  Ban ANY negative action or thought
    				    about the goverment.
    
    	Can't happen you say?  Well, you are betting with all our freedoms.
    	For all our sake, I hope you and not me are right! If not, I
    	hope I will at least be granted enough small freedom to come
    	back in here and say "I told you so!!".
    
    G_B