Mr. Know
Joined: 22 Jul 2007 Posts: 1 Location: USA
|
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:17 am Post subject: Flag Burning -- Peaceable or Violence under guise of a Right |
|
|
Burning the Flag seems no more the exercising of "the freedom of speech" than that of burning leaves. In fact, burning the Flag is more akin to a violent or destructive act, rather than that which can be considered peaceful in perusing the right, “peaceably to assemble.”
If you were to drive your automobile into downtown Washington D.C. and then set it afire, would you be protected by the 1st amendment? Probably not; so, what makes burning the Flag any different? Are not both property? Does not each State or municipality have a right of legislating against such violent or destructive acts -- acts that no one can, in all honesty, believe as being truly peaceable?
If a local municipality can ban the burning of a Thing within its jurisdiction, so why can it not also ban the burning of the Flag or any Thing for that matter -- be it leaves, an automobile, or the Flag?
If burning the Flag is truly protected by the 1st amendment -- under the alleged constitutional right to “freedom of expression” (a right that cannot be found anywhere in the constitution,) then, for sake of argument, carrying and applying that logically forward to other objects, do we then have a constitutional right to kick a cat or a dog in want of merely expressing ourselves? Is not the cat or dog, then, mere property, no different than the Flag? So, why treat the Flag different? Why does the Flag, then, get a pass and cannot be protected under the same kinds of laws and ordinances that protect the cat and the dog from being kicked, and the leaves from being burned?
Is not each said other act -- whether it is kicking a dog, kicking a cat, or burning the Flag -- inherently violent or destructive in nature and not at all peaceable? Would not each of these said acts result in the same harming or the same destroying of property for only the want of merely making a Political statement -- (mis)using an alleged Right of Expression to justify, and have excused, said violent, harmful or destructive behavior?
(Protected under the copyright laws of the United States of America. You may not reproduce this post without express written permission from the poster. You may, however, disseminate a link to this post in any electronic communication or web page.) |
|