Flag Burning: The Debate
...y want to make it so Mr. Johnson could not have burned the flag, not so that he could not have participated in the demonstration. Also, they say, that 48 out of 50 states already have laws against publicly burning the American flag, therefore why not make it national with the addition of a Constitutional amendment. The amendment they are proposing, is only designed to protect the actual flag, not images of the flag. They also assert that the amendment is not intended to protect feelings, but enhance the freedom of speech in other, less offensive ways. Veterans of our country fought to protect our flag and our rights. Burning the flag is disrespectful towards them and all those who died. Supporters of the court argue that an amendment would not be necessary, since it would be trying to protect flags from their owners. If you go and steal a flag from someone else’s yard or a government building, you could, not only be charged with arson for burning the flag, but trespassing and numerous other misdemeanors. Supporters also say that there have been fewer than five flag burnings a year since 1989. If Congress is going to ban flag burning, it should ban cross burning as well, since the Ku Klux Klan burns more crosses than anyone burns flags. The amendment would be counterproductive, spurring on more political protests and doing exactly what they are trying to stop. Justice Brennan wrote in the opinion of the court, which he authored, “Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” (Free Speech ©2000) The message protestors are trying to get across to the government by burning the flag is, 'whatever you mean by flying the flag, I mean the opposite.' (Free Speech ©1994) “Every act of communication,” Mr. John Hart Ely states, “is both speech and conduct.” (Free Speech ©1994) In my opinion, the amendment proposed by the dissidents is outrageous. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…[or] to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Bill of Rights ©1791) Burning the flag is a form of speech. The person burning the flag is trying to tell the government, “I don’t like what you’re doing.” In a way, it is not only a form of freedom of speech, but freedom to petition the government. Dissidents of the court say that they are trying to ‘enhance the freedom of speech’, but how can speech be enhanced if you take away the means to express that speech? Mr. Gary Wills says, “If ideas are too important to suppress, they are also too important to ignore. The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.” If someone is burning a flag, there is a reason for it. Punishment should not be requisite for those who burn the flag. The purpose behind burning the flag should be examined and re-evaluated. In addition, there are some people, who wonder where we are going to stop once we succeed in outlawing the burning of the flag? Are we going to punish people who burn a piece of paper with a flag drawn on it? Should we discipline someone for burning a virtual flag over the Internet? Th...