0 votes
Jun 3, 2015

I've got a different approach to the "flag-burning" issue, as a constitutional amendment. Instead of adopting an amendment that is just about the flag, adopt an amendment to say that Freedom of Speech does NOT protect physically destructive activities, such as burning things. That takes care of flag-burning AND cross-burning (see R.A.V. v. St. Paul), and it addresses what I believe to be the true underlying problem of "interpreting" the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment - that what the First Amendment principle is about is protecting WORDS, not actions, and that it certainly does not protect physically destructive actions. Face it, when somebody sets a flag on fire, they have not SAID anything. We don't know why they did it unless and until they SPEAK. And the act of setting a flag or a cross on fire literally destroys the objects. The objects are reduced to ashes. No new knowledge is imparted. The act of burning a cross instills fear! (Does that not "hurt"?)

Reply to this opinion
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
Invite your friend via email:
Share it: