Welp, Election coming up, time to past the Anti-Flag burning ament. Again!

[Up2Late]

(I don't know about you, but this bi-annual ReThug effort "to protect the flag" is really getting tiresome.)

This is an ACLU Press Release
<http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/flag/25452prs20060504.html>

Senate Panel Passes Measure to Include Censorship in Constitution, ACLU Urges Full Senate to Oppose as First Amendment Hangs in Balance

(5/4/2006)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [e-mail]

WASHINGTON - Noting that free expression and the right to dissent are among the core principles which the American flag represents, the American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its disappointment that a key Senate panel failed to protect the Constitution when it passed the Flag Desecration Amendment. The House passed the Flag Desecration Amendment by a narrow eight-vote margin last year.

"If we take away the right to dissent - no matter how unpopular - what freedom will be sacrificed next?" said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The First Amendment must be protected most when it comes to unpopular speech. Failure to do so fails the very notion of freedom of expression. We urge the full Senate to reject election year politics and stand for the Constitution."

The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Property Rights today approved S.J.R. 12, the Flag Desecration Amendment, which would allow Congress to criminalize any "physical desecration" of the American flag. If adopted, it would be the first time the Constitution has been used to restrict freedoms since Prohibition. The ACLU noted that proposals to ban flag desecration or burning have been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court and Congress since first introduced in the late 1980s, and polls have shown the public has grown increasingly averse to including censorship in the Constitution.

The ACLU pointed to a survey released in early June of 2005 by the First Amendment Center in which 63 percent of those polled said that the Constitution "should not be amended to prohibit burning or desecrating the American flag." This number was 10 percentage points higher than the same survey conducted last year. The same survey found that support for the amendment dropped from 45 percent last year to 35 percent this year.

Opposition to the amendment remains ideologically broad. Former Secretary of State and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell said in a 1999 letter, "The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous." In addition to Powell, former Senator John Glenn and former Reagan Defense Department official Lawrence J. Korb, have all spoken out against the proposal. Veterans Defending the Bill of Rights, Veterans for Peace and Veterans for Common Sense have also been vocal in their opposition.

"If this measure passes, it would put the symbol above the values it represents," said Terri Ann Schroeder, an ACLU Senior Lobbyist. "The strength of our democracy is that we tolerate all peaceful forms of expression, no matter how uncomfortable they make us feel, or how much we disagree. We hope that the Senate will ultimately reject this attack on the Constitution."

For more on the ACLU's concerns with the Flag Desecration Amendment, go to:

<http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/flag/25452prs20060504.html>

[Syrinx]

1. I bet Hillary supports it

Can't support her for the nomination anyway.

[SaveElmer]

9. Didn't take long for someone to distort Hillary's position...

Not unexpected...

Of course had you done the smallest bit of research you would know that Hillary has always opposed, and still opposes, any flag desecration amendment.

The source of your comment of course, is her co-sponsorship that would make flag burning, on federal property, with the intent to intimidate, a crime. Similar in intent to laws against cross-burning. You can argue the necessity of the law, but to say that Hillary supports a flag-burning amendment is flat out wrong.

But when has Hillary bashing ever been slowed up by facts?

[Syrinx]

12. well, bless her triangulating little heart

Ok, now I see that she supports an (unconstitutional) law to prevent burning of the flag on federal property OR to burn a flag if it's "likely to produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace." In other words, if it's likely to piss someone off, like a cop.

Yeah, that's a principled stand. :sarcasm:

Hillary places ambition over principle, and that couldn't be clearer. (I realize that's far from an uncommon characteristic among politicians, but not exactly what we need in a candidate right now.)

Okay, so she doesn't support an amendment. But she supports a law that would accomplish the same thing. The thrust of such a law has already been declared unconstitutional, and the only thing that has changed since then is Bush has put a couple more authoritarians on the court.

By the way, as far as I know, Hillary still supports the illegal war in Iraq.

If someone supports the ways of a big-government authoritarian war-machine, they should go all out and vote Republican. Why should they waste their vote on a mealy-mouthed wannabe?

[SaveElmer]

13. So you admit your were wrong...

I apppreciate it!

[Syrinx]

14. only marginally

But you're welcome.

[Chipper Chat]

2. The flag-making business may suffer if the amendment passes.

Reason: some average-Americans may feel reluctant to display or even own a flag anymore out of fear of reprisals for accidental desecration - such as leaving the flag out in the rain or having a flag unintentionally burn up in a house fire. Registered Republicans need not fear, but libs and DUers may be subject to survellance by the Pug Police. Think about it.

[greekspeak]

3. Flag fetishists care little about the code governing the flag

When I was in boy scouts (ugh--dad made me, I personally got tired of all the military wannabe crap) we had to know how to treat the flag. We learned about the (voluntary, of course) code that governs the treatment of the flag. There is a way the flag is to be displayed, folded, stored, etc. It is not to be left out in the rain, nor is it to be worn as clothes or used on disposable items. It is not meant to be made into a big old magnet for the back end of your gas guzzler, nor is it to be blown to tatters on the antenna of said gas guzzler. If it is desecrated, it is to be disposed of by burial and or BURNING. I do not see anything in the flag code about it, but I doubt that flag purists would suggest the flag should be used as a political volleyball for the right.

here is a page that discusses all this:

http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html

In short, these flag fetishists are HYPOCRITES! Constitutional amendment against burning the flag indeed. That is all I am saying in this matter. There are wars and rumors of wars, imperial presidencies, mass layoffs, domestic spying, and other matters to really worry about.

[troubleinwinter]

16. Flag codes

"The flag should never be used as wearing apparel..."



In July 2003 President Bush autographed a small flag. This picture was circulated across the Internet noting its violation of the Flag Code: "The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

[populistdriven]

4. If the Dems and ACLU want to fight this then we need to do the following:

Submit legislation for there be a Constitutional Amendment making it illegal for the flag to be used as a political volleyball for the right.

Asking us Democrats to "call our senators" is just politics as usual.

EOM

[skipos]

5. Kucinich and Dean have supported anti-flag burning legislation

in the past. Repubs bring this up because they know exactly what we will do (oppose it) and what Americans will think of democrats who oppose it (they will think we are commies) and that helps repubs. I hope democrats don't take the bait this time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. The idiots have burned this "issue" into oblivion.

It's not exactly high on list of worries of anyone except those suffering from Limbaughtomies.

[Up2Late]

10. I agree, but you have to know, this will become issue #1 on Fox "news"...

...who will start hammering this "issue" from now until the November election.

I'm over it, but the the RW lemmings are going to use it at every opportunity to bash Dems.:mad:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. They're preaching to the choir.

[SaveElmer]

7. Self Delete...wrong place

[dogday]

8. I am still waiting on a bill that will

actually benefit the american public... :mad:

[Up2Late]

15. kick n/t

:kick: