There is once again a brouhaha being raised about flag burning - the American flag of course. The question, which was supposedly settled by the wisdom of the Supreme Court in 1989, is whether this really is free speech. The Supreme Court said yes. Most other people say "Hooey."

I definitely fall into the second category. I don’t, however, approve of the new effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment to that effect. I believe that constitutional amendments should be saved for extremely substantive issues. I do wish however, that someone would devise a scheme for taking the issue back to the Supreme Court for review. The Court might just reverse itself after a reasonable time reflecting on this idiocy.

If burning a flag is speech (under the broad interpretation of "expression"), what is it expressing? Well, the obvious answer is that it is expressing contempt for the country and therefore for the concepts upon which the country is based - one of these, of course, being free speech. Therefore, if one expresses contempt for free speech, one should lose the protections offered for it.

My interpretation is that flag burning isn’t speech at all. I disagree with the "symbolism" protected under this premise. It is too vague. One can hardly disagree with everything about a country, which is what the flag represents. Most of us disagree with something about the country, but most of us likewise agree with most things about the country.

Let the disgruntled people express themselves as to the particular rather than the general. If they are too ignorant or too lazy to formulate their discontent into words, then they have no business "expressing" themselves at all.

This, of course, leads us to a larger question, and that is the inability of a majority of Americans to express themselves clearly at all due to poor education. Perhaps we should have a mandatory place in our school curriculum and train our children in "self-expression." As in parade permits, one would have to have a permit for public "expression." This could be a life-long permit, granted upon passing a test. The test would consist of assessing an individual’s ability to think through an issue logically and to express his or her ideas on the issue coherently. That would do away with the need for "symbolic" speech.

Or, and more directly to the point, we could change the assault and battery laws. If burning a flag is considered freedom of speech, then conversely, decking the flag-burner on the spot should also be considered "symbolic" free speech. It would be a symbol of the anger of the patriot just as legitimately as burning the flag is a symbol of the anger of the malcontent. Of course this new "freedom of speech" would have to have its limits and we could have a flurry of new federal regulations for that. This would thrill the Justice Department.

For instance, if the first blow breaks the jaw, no further "decking" would be allowed. However, if the first blow merely knocks the burner over, and he or she regains an upright posture, the issue could be resolved in one of two ways. If, upon being upright, the burner resumes burning, the decker could resume decking. However, if the burner decides that enough "self-expression" has occurred to achieve the point, he or she could elect to abandon the field. Under no circumstances could the burner strike a blow on the decker. That would be assault and battery because only one type of symbolic speech could be protected at a time. Since the burner is exercizing "burning", "decking" isn’t protected. Otherwise a complete melee could result.

Although I’m making terrific fun of this issue due to its absurdity, I really do feel strongly about the underlying issue, which is that some types of speech are not protected and this should be one of them. Inciting to riot is illegal, as is crying fire in a crowded theater. There are logical reasons for this. In my opinion, burning the flag is very closely akin to inciting to riot. It is a gesture designed to create rage, and that is quite a different matter than, for instance, declaring opposition to the Viet Nam war (which is where this question originated).

When expressing oneself on issues, it is only natural that some people will disagree. If the issue is particularly serious, others may become quite angry. That is not the same as intentionally thumbing one’s nose at a deeply held personal belief. There used to be a defense against assault and battery charges called "fighting words." I believe that is no longer the case in most states, but it should be.

If someone intentionally insulted another at a deeply personal level, such as casting aspersions on a mother, a wife, a situation of birth, religion, or ethnicity, it was considered quite reasonable for that person to respond with a simple punch in the jaw. Certainly flag-burning would fall into this category.

When a person expresses himself with words, it is easy for someone who disagrees to do likewise. When one expresses himself with symbols, in addition to being a "cop-out", it leaves only symbolism as a response. Words are not effective against certain types of symbols. That is why the Swastika still causes horror. That is also why I am opposed to the insolence and disrespect of a gesture like flag burning. It says something much more profound than "I disagree." It should not be protected speech, but then again it isn’t important enough for an amendment to the Constitution. Just keep the TV cameras away and no one will burn a flag anyway. DBJ

For more Delta Business info, Subscribe Now!

View Archives

../issues/current/articles/index.htm

Site last updated January 10, 1999.