June 30, 2006

Freedom of Speech?

Ben Stein

    there are already immense exceptions to the doctrine of free speech. What occurs to little me is that if we can tell a man he'll go to jail for calling a black man a name that any child can hear a thousand times a day on rap radio stations, why can't we say it's also a slur to people's feelings -- especially veterans' feelings -- to burn the flag?

    If we can tell people that it's obscene to show pictures of children having sex (and it is), why can't we say it's obscene to burn the flag that is the symbol of this shining city on a hill, a flag for which many brave men and women have died? If it hurts women's feelings to hear sex jokes at the office and if that's illegal, doesn't it also hurt patriots' feelings to see the flag burned?

    I don't get it. Why is protecting the flag less of a priority than banning song lyrics or dirty jokes or pornography?

    What am I missing here? The flag is sacred. There is more than enough state interest in protecting to keep it from being burned. Can we reconsider this, please?


I really have a problem with hate crime legislation, but is burning a flag a hate crime?

Current Events Posted by AlexC at June 30, 2006 7:05 PM

I like the comparison to hate speech. I support FREE speech which might include objectionable things like Illinois Nazis (I hate Illinois Nazis!) or flag burning.

The better comparison is McCain-Feingold. I wish all these Democrats had found religion when they were voting on that. Flag burning is smallball by comparison.

Posted by: jk at July 1, 2006 11:39 AM

I agree, McCain-Feingold or the 527 "reform" are way bigger examples of destroying free speech.

If burning a flag is patriotic, and expressing "freedom of speech", I wish the pyromaniacs would wrap themselves in it first.

Posted by: AlexC at July 1, 2006 11:47 AM

I'm tough on politicians around here but it's a good time to celebrate a man who faced opprobrium to vote against both.

Two ThreeSources Profiles in Courage Awards to Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell.

Posted by: jk at July 1, 2006 12:11 PM

Amendment I to the Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" and yet, SPEAKING certain words has been made unlawful while ACTING in certain other ways is considered sacrosanct.

Everyone should always have the right to say, "America sucks" or "the flag stands for ______" (insert collectivist slur of choice). But nobody should have the right to burn the Flag in the public square, even if he owns said flag. There is no "self-evident" right of an individual to publicly and uncerimoniously destroy, with extreme prejudice, the preeminent national symbol of this country.

Posted by: johngalt at July 3, 2006 3:29 PM

Oh yes, and Mitch McConnell makes me sick. His was the deciding vote in killing the amendment. He can't seriously believe that the lack of a Flag Burning Amendment will be any impediment to those who strive to emasculate the Second Amendment!

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=257826&start=1

While I agree with McConnell's argument about truth and reason, those who risk their lives for the flag on foreign shores should not be forced to stand by while it is piddled on back home. If we can pay veterans medical costs, we can protect the one symbol that means more to them than anything else on earth. The Constitution will survive such an exalted exception.

Posted by: johngalt at July 3, 2006 3:36 PM | What do you think? [5]