So, my other country came within a hair's bredth of a constitutional ban of flag burning.
The last time this was brought up was in 2004. Also, incidentally, an election year.
Coincidence? Um, no.
But let's talk about this ban for a second. The United States of America wanted to ban the burning of the flag.
Here's the catch tho: the Flag Code of the United States of America specifically requires a flag to be ceremonially burned if it becomes soiled or damaged or has otherwise outlived its useful life.
Apparently, that kind of burning is okay, but burning it in protest is not.
In other words, the current administration is not trying to regulate the behaviour of burning the flag, so much as the sentiment voiced by said burning.
Seems to me that there was something in that whole constitution thing about some "free expression" somethingorother, wasn't there?
Now, I understand that some people are offended by the idea of flag burning. Freedom of speech, by definition, means that you're going to be offended. It means that you're going to hear things that you don't like, and don't want to hear. It means that a Neonazi can stand in the center of the village square proclaiming his hatred of all non-aryan races without fear of reprisal from the government. Freedom means acknowledging someone who stands at center stage proclaiming at the top of his lungs what you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.
In short, the first amendment of the constitution is meant to protect all speech, not just the speech you agree with.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment