December 10, 2005
TRIANGULATING TENTATIVELY:
Protecting Old Glory: Unlike Hatch's proposal, Bennett's plan doesn't seek an amendment and draws fire left and right (Thomas Burr, 12/10/05, The Salt Lake Tribune)
Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, has a new ally in his push to make it a crime to deface the American flag: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is taking heat for supporting the bill.
The former first lady-turned-senator has joined as a co-sponsor of Bennett's flag-protection bill that allows the government to fine or imprison someone who intentionally defaces or destroys the U.S. flag.
You can understand the inclination to trim, but on this one she's better off if all the hostile fire comes from the Left. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 10, 2005 9:35 PM
No need to enact a law: Just have a societal understanding that anybody who beats up a flag-burner gets fined perhaps $10. We thus avoid a prolonged debate about free speech issues and our fellow citizens get to mete our much-deserved thrashings to antisocial loutish pipsqueaks.
Surely, since liberals are always talking about how criminals are driven to crime by their backgrounds, they can understand the plight of the patriotic American (and sometimes veteran) who is driven by emotional anguish to clobber that street-corner goober who is torching Old Glory. Right? Right?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at December 10, 2005 10:28 PMDAMN RIGHT ! ! !
Posted by: obc at December 10, 2005 11:01 PMA nation of Rick Mondays.
Incidentally, on a baseball blog in the past year I came across a guy who hated Rick Monday with a passion b/c opf the flag incident. Had been a Dodger fan but switched to the Red Sawx when LA picked up Monday.
Typical Red Sawx fan.
Posted by: Jim in Chicago at December 10, 2005 11:26 PMIntentionally destroys?
Like burning because it's tattered?
I really hate this, no matter what. They have more important things to work on.
Posted by: Sandy P at December 11, 2005 2:54 AMArson is not speech. Burning trash (their description, I''m sure) with or without a permit, is not speech. Littering is not speech. Incitement to riot is not speech. And let's not forget the "hate speech" laws which are enacted in the most progressive areas.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 11, 2005 3:21 AMThis is tricky. All the above plans involving beating those people up have a certain attraction, but have defects making them unworkable.
A better approach might be to use hate-crime or possible ethnic-intimidation language to cover flag-burning. The artistry is to use the enemy'e weapons, with just a slight difference in perspective. The law must be drafted in such a way that if our law is taken down theirs must be as well.
Put flag-burning in the same statute as cross-burning or swastika-painting. Force the other side to defend, not freedom of speech in the abstract, but freedom of their own kind of hate speech.
Posted by: Lou Gots at December 11, 2005 4:12 AMLou: brilliant idea.
Posted by: Mike Morley at December 11, 2005 7:31 AMTreason isn't protected speech.
Posted by: oj at December 11, 2005 7:47 AMjust keep some lighter fluid handy and spray it on the flag burner while he is lighting up, maybe block the ambulance for awhile too. 3rd degree vs 1st ammendment is a winner every time.
Posted by: boots marching at December 11, 2005 11:24 AMBurning imans.
Posted by: Sandy P at December 12, 2005 12:08 AM