What do you think about those images of demonstrators burning flags? Apart, that is, from them looking a bit silly? I’ve always viewed the behaviour of angry flag burning mobs as little more than playground temper tantrums that never quite made it to the adult world. Libertine views the matter similarly to the burning of books and I guess he has a point. There is something repugnant about it, which is why people do it. The desecration of a national symbol is deeply insulting and it is intended to express maximum displeasure. The counter to this, surely, is to ignore it; refuse to rise to the obloquy. But, and here is the rub, should it be outlawed? To do so would give the message to the flag burners that they have achieved their desired aim.
The US Congress has almost done just that, giving the flag burners a level of gravitas their petulance does not deserve, by debating this very issue – when arguably they could have been discussing more worthy matters, but that is by the by. What matters, surely, is that in a civilised society free speech prevails and burning flags is, providing no one gets hurt (although, I wouldn’t shed any tears should a flag burner accidentally go up in smoke), simply an expression of free speech. Yet the vote was a close one:
An attempt to modify the US Constitution and outlaw the desecration of the American flag failed by just one vote in the Senate yesterday, as Republicans and Democrats argued over whether the country’s national symbol deserved special legal protection.
That, it would seem, is just how close freedom of speech is to being stifled in the land of the free. There was some interesting rhetoric made in favour of providing legal protection for the flag:
Speaking for the protection of Old Glory, the Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist said: “Countless men and women have died defending that flag. It is but a small humble act for us to defend it.”
I’m not sure I’d go along with that. Surely they died defending what it represented and in passing this amendment to the constitution, it would no longer represent that, would it? Consequently, the sacrifice would be undermined. Is it me, or did that just go round in a complete circle? Still, I’m not the only one who would prefer national symbols be sacrificed rather than give way on free speech:
Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated veteran who lost an arm fighting in the Second World War, said: “This objectionable expression is obscene, it is painful, it is unpatriotic. But I believe Americans gave their lives in many wars to make certain all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts.”
Yes, indeed. And, by allowing the desecration of the flag, they defend those ideals. The vote went the right way in my opinion. What is worrying is that so many would sacrifice freedom of speech in the belief that it will not be them affected by the ripples such a ruling would create. Ban flag burning today and what will tomorrow’s restriction be? Once successful, censors of free speech will always come back for more; the beast is never sated.
As ever in such matters, I defer to the wisdom of Bill Hicks…
No-one, and I repeat NO-ONE has ever died for a flag. A flag is a piece of cloth, they might have died for freedom, which, by the way, is the freedom to….Burn the.. fucking flag you see??..Burning the flag doesn’t make freedom go away, it’s kinda like Free-dom ok?..ok.
Slightly off the subject, but as you know many Americans fly their national flag outside their houses. I don’t know if it is true but an American told me that when the flag wears out they are not supposed to throw it away, but are requested to take it to their local National Guard depot where it is burned at a special ceremony.