Chicago Tribune Editorial - Flag desecration, again
Chicago Tribune Editorial - Flag desecration, again
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published May 26, 2006
You know it's an election year when Congress, faced with an array of major problems, decides to focus on a major non-problem: desecration of the American flag. A Senate subcommittee recently approved a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to outlaw flag-burning. The measure has already passed the House, which means the Senate once again bears responsibility for turning back this gratuitous assault on constitutional liberties.
The recurring controversy dates back to 1989, when the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man for burning a flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. The law he broke, said the court, violated the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of expression. Why? Because while it was permissible to burn a dirty flag to dispose it in a respectful way, it was forbidden to burn it as a show of disrespect. "The government," said the court, "may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message."
The succeeding 17 years did not bring an epidemic of flag-burning. But that hasn't quelled the sentiment in Congress for amending the Constitution to carve out an exception to the 1st Amendment.
It's true that there are occasional incidents of flag desecration, but rather than demonstrate the need for a new law, they prove just the opposite. The Citizens Flag Alliance, which keeps track of these incidents, gives a list of only a dozen in 2005. But with one possible exception, all of them involved the sort of behavior that can be punished without running afoul of the Constitution--since it's already illegal to swipe an American flag (or anything else) hanging from a public building or a private home and destroy it. It's only legal to burn a flag that belongs to you. And incidents like that hardly ever happen.
When they do, they are contemptible. But nothing in our national tradition suggests that we should forbid any type of speech or expression merely because it offends people.
The amendment has repeatedly failed to muster the required two-thirds support in the Senate. That may foster a false sense that it will never pass. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union says the amendment is just one vote short of the two-thirds majority it needs. If so, all it would take for it to pass is for one senator now opposed to change sides. In that case, the measure would go to the states for ratification--and the legislatures in all 50 have adopted resolutions in support.
It would be a sad day for freedom if, for the first time in American history, an exception were granted to the Bill of Rights. It would be no favor to Old Glory to "protect" it by damaging the liberties for which it stands.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published May 26, 2006
You know it's an election year when Congress, faced with an array of major problems, decides to focus on a major non-problem: desecration of the American flag. A Senate subcommittee recently approved a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to outlaw flag-burning. The measure has already passed the House, which means the Senate once again bears responsibility for turning back this gratuitous assault on constitutional liberties.
The recurring controversy dates back to 1989, when the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man for burning a flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. The law he broke, said the court, violated the 1st Amendment's protection of freedom of expression. Why? Because while it was permissible to burn a dirty flag to dispose it in a respectful way, it was forbidden to burn it as a show of disrespect. "The government," said the court, "may not prohibit expression simply because it disagrees with its message."
The succeeding 17 years did not bring an epidemic of flag-burning. But that hasn't quelled the sentiment in Congress for amending the Constitution to carve out an exception to the 1st Amendment.
It's true that there are occasional incidents of flag desecration, but rather than demonstrate the need for a new law, they prove just the opposite. The Citizens Flag Alliance, which keeps track of these incidents, gives a list of only a dozen in 2005. But with one possible exception, all of them involved the sort of behavior that can be punished without running afoul of the Constitution--since it's already illegal to swipe an American flag (or anything else) hanging from a public building or a private home and destroy it. It's only legal to burn a flag that belongs to you. And incidents like that hardly ever happen.
When they do, they are contemptible. But nothing in our national tradition suggests that we should forbid any type of speech or expression merely because it offends people.
The amendment has repeatedly failed to muster the required two-thirds support in the Senate. That may foster a false sense that it will never pass. In fact, the American Civil Liberties Union says the amendment is just one vote short of the two-thirds majority it needs. If so, all it would take for it to pass is for one senator now opposed to change sides. In that case, the measure would go to the states for ratification--and the legislatures in all 50 have adopted resolutions in support.
It would be a sad day for freedom if, for the first time in American history, an exception were granted to the Bill of Rights. It would be no favor to Old Glory to "protect" it by damaging the liberties for which it stands.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 9:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home