Flag Burning = Cross Burning : According to Jim Talent (Sen.)

[Mom_and_Dad]

The following is a responce I recieved to a letter sent to my Senator regarding
the Ammendment on Flag Burning.


BEGIN EMAIL....

From - Tue May 31 09:27:19 2005
From: "Senator Jim Talent" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Constitutional Amendment for Flag Desecration
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:17:33 -0400

Dear Mr. ...

Thank you for contacting me about S.J. Res. 4,
constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the flag. I
appreciate the time you have taken to share your views with me,
and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I agree with you that freedom of speech is one of the pillars
upon which this country was built. It allows us the freedom to
express ourselves within the confines of society. I would never
support restricting anyone's right to say or write anything they
want about the flag or America. But burning a flag is not speech;
it is an act with expressive overtones, and that distinction is crucial
for constitutional purposes. For example, the Supreme Court
recently held, properly in my view, that cross-burning could be
prohibited, even though it is obviously an expressive act, because
of the important interests at stake.
We have a great interest in protecting the physical integrity
of the flag. The flag is the only unifying symbol of our Republic.
It represents that common history and heritage which holds
America together notwithstanding religious, cultural, or political
differences. Physical and public desecration of the flag degrades
those values and coarsens America far more than any speech or
political dissent possibly could.

Based on these points, I believe the flag amendment is fully
justified. That is why I am an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 4.
The proposed amendment protects all actual speech and carves out
only the narrowest range of expressive conduct which may be
regulated. It will not prevent anyone from saying or writing
anything, however offensive, about America, the flag, politics, or
anything else. The marketplace of ideas was strong and vital for
the first two hundred years of our Republic, during which time
States routinely passed such laws.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important
issue. If I may be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call
or write.


Thank you for your email. To contact me on this or any other subject,
please go to http://talent.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm

Sincerely,

Senator Jim Talent

END EMAIL...

There isn't even an ammendment on Cross Burning. WTF?
Cross Burning seems to be protected. RE: So. Carolina Cross Burnings.

This from CNN:
Burning a cross without the permission of the property owner is a misdemeanor in North Carolina. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that, under the First Amendment, cross burning could be barred only when done with the intent to intimidate.

I am appalled and horified.

I will be taking it up with my Senator.

[Rowdyboy]

1. You have more than one political issue at stake

Free speech would argue that burning a flag and burning a cross are equal. However, in reality, burning a cross is an act of racial intimidation and burning a flag is -at most-political speech.

Its not the same thing.

[longship]

2. He's correct about one thing...

They are more-or-less the same thing. They are both protected speech.

Courts held that cross burning is not, in itself, unlawful if it is not used to intimidate or threaten. Anybody can burn a cross on their own land, for instance.

The same for the flag. Flag burning is protected speech.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Exactly, that's where the shit hits the fan

You can burn as many crosses on your own property as you want. What you can't do is hold a KKK rally in front of a black person's house and burn a cross there, because that's basically a death threat.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

3. OK, let's run through this.

I've heard no serious mention of a cross-burning amendment in Congress, so Talent's analogy is already flawed. Cross burning is intrinsically terror, so it's different from flag burning. Let it be known that I abhor flag burning, being that its unpatriotic and rude. However, free speech is free speech. How can cross burning be protected speech, and flag burning not be?

[usregimechange]

4. Well, I don't think we should try to win on this.

[scratchtasia]

5. I got the same letter

This idiotic "protect the flag" shit really bugs me because it implies that the flag and what it stands for are actually hurt by such actions. If the flag is so strong, why does it need protection against such a weak and hackneyed form of political expression?

And where is the epidemic of flag-burning that requires such an amendment?

I hate Talent.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. So how does Talent feel about

displaying the Confederate flag?