Flag Burning

[Cail]

Also for the record--you are allowed to scream FIRE in a crowded movie theatre, provided there is in fact a fire. Burning a cross is also legal--unless you are doing so as a threat directed at someone.

For the record, you're not allowed to scream "fire" in a theater if there is no fire, we're talking about restrictions on free speech, not being Captain Obvious.

And check your facts, burning the cross is illegal.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/07/supr ... 8121.shtml

[Myste]

But it is legal to desecrate Christian holy objects if the intent is not intimidation--to wit, Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ," a photograph that shows a crucifix in a mason jar full of the photographer's urine. Disgusting? Yes. Blasphemous? Certainly. Art? Who knows? But it's the expression of some kind of thought or feeling on the part of the photographer, and therefore protected under the law.

When I was in middle school, a local evangelical group came to school one day as we were getting out and handed free copies of the New Testament to all the students they could (before they got kicked off campus). One of the kids on my bus ripped his copy to shreds. It was appalling--not only because he destroyed a copy of the Bible, but because his action had no symbolic value whatsoever. He was simply being destructive.

Symbols are powerful things--to those who believe in them. One of the founding freedoms of America is that the government cannot legislate its constituents' beliefs.

Personally, I'm a little freaked out by the comparison of the US flag with religious holy objects (though I'm doing it myself)--Americanism is not a religion. It's a political citizenship, defined by a set of philosophical beliefs that are all predicated on the freedom of the individual.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

sing it, sistah.

[Cail]

Personally, I'm a little freaked out by the comparison of the US flag with religious holy objects (though I'm doing it myself)--Americanism is not a religion. It's a political citizenship, defined by a set of philosophical beliefs that are all predicated on the freedom of the individual.

It absolutely is NOT a religion, but the flag, like the bible or the cross, is a symbol that has inherent meaning to a lot of people. It is specifically illegal to burn the cross, which is a religious symbol, yet it's legal (and government funded) if it's "Piss Christ", and it's legal to burn the flag, which we all know is a secular symbol.

I'm very curious to see what Av has to say about this. He's been very vocally against laws that are designed to peotect peoples' feelings, and I'd say the existing cross-burning and pending flag-burning laws are a real test to that.

[Plissken]

I'm a little put off by the equating of cross and flag burning. People didn't generally burn crosses on their own lawns after all. Cross burning was used as a specific threat, against a specific family, of a specific race. That's not causing hurt feelings or political protest (which should be protected speech), it's threatening a target with a good ol' fashioned lynching (which isn't).

[[Syl]]

When I was in middle school, a local evangelical group came to school one day as we were getting out and handed free copies of the New Testament to all the students they could (before they got kicked off campus). One of the kids on my bus ripped his copy to shreds. It was appalling--not only because he destroyed a copy of the Bible, but because his action had no symbolic value whatsoever. He was simply being destructive.

We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges... it is a profound mistake to believe that we must know of such things to be influenced by them, and in fact to believe so is to believe in the most debased and superstitious kind of magic. The would-be sorcerer alone has faith in the efficacy of pure knowledge; rational people know that things act of themselves or not at all.

Which is just saying that I doubt the kid tearing up the bible was the empty act you think it was. Same for burning crosses. And the symbol of the burning cross represents violence and oppression. There is no "reasonable man" standard to compare it to. Would a reasonalbe man have any need to display a burning cross (outside of a Madonna video)? Of course, a black swastika on a red background would say the same thing, but AFAIK, that's legal (in the US).

[Cail]

I'm a little put off by the equating of cross and flag burning. People didn't generally burn crosses on their own lawns after all. Cross burning was used as a specific threat, against a specific family, of a specific race. That's not causing hurt feelings or political protest (which should be protected speech), it's threatening a target with a good ol' fashioned lynching (which isn't).

Again, I'm not arguing that. What I'm saying is that from a cold, objective viewpoint, we as a nation are OK with limiting certain speech, and by protecting certain symbols.

Why is "Piss Christ" OK, but burning the cross isn't?

Why is burning the flag OK, but burning (or flushing) the Q'uran isn't.

What I'm arguing is that there needs to be respect for other people's feelings and beliefs, while at the same time we need to insure that people are free to express themselves. Burning the flag (or a cross, or a Q'uran)is a childish display designed to get attention and piss people off. To argue that it's a valit form of protest is to argue that foolishness works.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

It's context.... and also intent....

[Cail]

OK Jem, so what's the intent of "Piss Christ"? How about the context? It was done specifically to provoke a reaction....To piss people off. Which is exactly the same reason people burn crosses or the flag.

[ChoChiyo]

Well, nobody is forced to look at Piss Christ. You can ignore this guy and you can write letters protest his funding, boycott his art shows, etc. Also, this idiot just threw his spite out at the general world, no one specifically was targetted for personal abuse by it. A group was.

If your hands are cuffed to your heels and you've been in this position for several days, and someone destroys your holy book before your eyes, with the immediate and grim purpose of insulting and hurting YOU, personally, it is different.

I think I would feel the same way about flag burning if it were done in front of a highly (and sincerely) patriotic person for the purpose of hurting/tormenting/breaking him. As a symbol of protest against a government one perceives to be corrupting the ideals that flag represents, it is a powerful statement.

[Plissken]

Again, the purpose of burning a cross isn't to provoke - it's to threaten, which is not protected speech.

The KKK reads from the Bible at their meetings (and use it's texts in much the same way that Jihadists use those of the Koran). I doubt very much if their intent is the same as someone who simply wants to provoke the followers of a religious group.

This distinction is one that is outside the comparison of flushing the Koran or burning the Flag.

[Cail]

No Cho, but my tax dollars payed for "Piss Christ".

And for the purposes of this discussion, I don't give a rat's ass what's going on at Gitmo. The discussion is about free speech. Either we're for it or we're for limiting it. Just because you or Plissken has an opinion about people's intent, doesn't make it fact. No one's forcing you to look at the burning cross in my front yard either, and I'm just doing it to express myself, yet for some reason, that's illegal.

You two are trying to draw a distinction between destroying the flag and destroying religious articles based on some nebulous argument of intent. It doesn't work like that, because the intent of either action is to provoke a negative response.

[ChoChiyo]

Well, as I said, you can protest the funding of that "artist" and get a bunch of other people who find the "art" offensive to sign a petition and force whatever government office is funding this idiot to cut his funds.

I understand your comment about the drawing of the distinction, and after some serious thought, this is my final conclusion:

I don't give a rat's ass if you want to piss all over your own personal copy of the Koran or the Bible or the American flag or the cross. Would I find it offensive? Certainly. But it's your freedom of expression.

When you (using the generic "you" to mean "anyone," not YOU (Cail) personally, do it to threaten, intimidate, torment, or abuse someone else, it is wrong.

Also, for the record, I would NEVER piss on or flush the American flag down the toilet. I recoil at the thought.

I am a metaphorical thinker--and to me, that would equate the principles for which the American flag stands with excrement. Burning it has a completely different metaphorical meaning. To burn the American flag, to me, means that our national ideals are going "up in smoke."

The two messages are very different.

Anyhow. That's my thought on the matter.

Seriously, if things continue to deteriorate as they currently are, you might see me on the news burning a flag...and you will understand, I hope, that I do it not as a gesture of disrespect for the principles America was founded upon, but as a symbol of despair that, in my eyes, the principles of American culture are being destroyed from the inside.

Far worse than terrorism, in my opinion.

[Plissken]

No Cho, but my tax dollars payed for "Piss Christ".

And for the purposes of this discussion, I don't give a rat's ass what's going on at Gitmo. The discussion is about free speech. Either we're for it or we're for limiting it. Just because you or Plissken has an opinion about people's intent, doesn't make it fact. No one's forcing you to look at the burning cross in my front yard either, and I'm just doing it to express myself, yet for some reason, that's illegal.

You two are trying to draw a distinction between destroying the flag and destroying religious articles based on some nebulous argument of intent. It doesn't work like that, because the intent of either action is to provoke a negative response.

Actually, it does work like that. Intent is a factor, not only in cases about speech, but in many other judicial and legislative decisions. ("I was only pointing the gun at her to make a point, your Honor...")

In fact, as far as I know, cross-burnings are entirely legal at Klan rallies. It's when you do it on someone else's lawn that it becomes illegal. The point is that Klansmen aren't burning the cross as a protest against the church in either case. They're using it as a rally point in one case, and as a threat in the other. Neither case is about offending delicate sensibilities, and it's the implied threat that makes one case illegal.

[Cail]

Cho, I understand your frustration with the current administration, but do you honestly think that torching the flag is going to have any impact whatsoever, other than putting your safety in jeopardy? Out of all the different ways of protesting or trying to affect change, I have to believe that flag burning is about the least effective thing you can do.

Plissken, burning a cross, a bible, a Q'uran, or the flag is done for one reason only, to provoke a reaction, or more specifically, to piss someone off.

Now remember, I'm all for free speech, I think it should be legal to burn the flag, but by the same token, it should be legal to burn the cross. More specifically, cross-burning shouldn't be singled out. Especially since it's already illegal to set anything on fire in your neighbor's yard.

What baffles me is that we accept the ban on cross-burning for the (very valid) reason of the history behind it, but oddly enough don't even consider the fact that it may be very offensive to Christians. Even further, we don't pass a law banning flag-burning, when that action puts the burner in immediate physical danger, and is incredibly offensive to a great number of people (and sorry Cho, you may see it as our values going up in smoke, I see it as a child peeing in the living room).

At any rate, you shouldn't desecrate anything, but it shouldn't be illegal.

Edit-On flag-burning as protest....Cho's got some valid gripes about the current administration. I would assume that if/when she protests, she's attempting tosway more people to her view, and affect change in the government's policies. By burning a flag, you can count on alienating just about everyone, which, it seems to me, is very counterproductive to your cause.

[Plissken]

I understand, and even agree with, your assessment that flag burning is offensive and ineffective.

Guess what? It's not (yet) illegal.

I'll even agree that "Piss Christ" was offensive and ineffectual as art.

Also not illegal.

Same with burning holy books.

Offensive, ineffective, and not illegal.

Burning a cross on someone's lawn, however, is not only offensive - it's also very effective in inspiring fear that a very specific set of violent crimes is about to be committed against the victim. It's a threat.

That's why it's illegal.

Saying repeatedly that there is no difference between the first three and the last one doesn't make it so.

[CovenantJr]

I vote we add an 'it's just a bloody piece of cloth' option to this poll.

Well said.

I understand, and even agree with, your assessment that flag burning is offensive and ineffective.

Guess what? It's not (yet) illegal.

I'll even agree that "Piss Christ" was offensive and ineffectual as art.

Also not illegal.

Same with burning holy books.

Offensive, ineffective, and not illegal.

Burning a cross on someone's lawn, however, is not only offensive - it's also very effective in inspiring fear that a very specific set of violent crimes is about to be committed against the victim. It's a threat.

That's why it's illegal.

Saying repeatedly that there is no difference between the first three and the last one doesn't make it so.

Also well said.

[Cail]

Burning a cross on someone's lawn, however, is not only offensive - it's also very effective in inspiring fear that a very specific set of violent crimes is about to be committed against the victim. It's a threat.

And you can keep making the same point, and that doesn't make it so either. I'll agree that most of the time, it is meant to intimidate, if not threaten the recipient. However, as I said, it's already illegal to burn anything in your neighbor's yard, so why single out crosses? What if you wanted to protest the Catholic church by burning a cross? You can't because of this ridiculous law. The law's redundant, and therefore invites a 3 page argument on which we are in complete agreement.

[High Lord Tolkien]

I vote we add an 'it's just a bloody piece of cloth' option to this poll.

Well said.

I second that.

Wait, is the law going to be just against burning a "cloth" flag?
Can people still burn a paper flag or a posterboard American flag?

Actually I'd be in favor or a law that burns American flags that are made in China.
That just drives me nuts!

[Plissken]

Crosses are singled out because of the implied threat. Simply burning something in your neighbors yard would simply be vandalism - or possibly arson, if there was property damage resulting from the fire.

As I recall, burning crosses have been used to drive out "those damnedable papists" in the past as well, but as a form of simple protest, without an added threat - that would be even more idiotic than other forms of destructive protests.

If your gripe is with the idea of "hate crimes," I'm right there with you. I just think that this instance goes further than simple vandalism, because of the traditional threat associated with burning crosses.

Think of it this way: If someone spraypaints swastikas on a synagogue, that's vandalism. (Really assholish vandalism, but moving on...)

However, if someone spraypaints "I'm going to go to this jew's house with a group of friends, and we're going to drag him out of his house and kill him in a violent and humiliating way..." - this is worthy of special treatment, even if it means writing a "redundant" law.

[EDIT]I guess what I'm saying is this: When you saw "Piss Christ," you may've been outraged, or (as I did) thought it to be boring, redundant, and sophmoric (kinda like all those crucified Barbie Dolls second-year feminist art-majors like to make). What you (and I) didn't feel was fear that the artist was going to come to our homes and commit violent acts upon us. I am willing to bet that you, or any reasonable person would feel that fear if someone burned a cross on their lawn.

That distinction is allowed for by law, and I think it's a good thing.