Jump to content

The Ban on Flag Burning


Recommended Posts

Not too long ago, a law was approved that banned burning the American Flag within the United States. Half of this country is relieved that their flag will no longer be hurt. The other half is outraged and they belief their civil rights have once again been trampled on.

 

Before I go in-depth with my own opinion, what does everyone else think? Regardless if you're American that is... I know there are places on this planet that if you speak out against your government in even the slightest way, you are immediately silenced. The United States is one of only a few places where such a thing is allowed.

 

Does anyone see this as a step in the direction of America turning into such a country? Since President Bush's first term, there's been quite a take down on public protest. Is this just one more restriction being placed on the public?

 

Flag burning is widely seen as dishonoring the flag, but others see it as honoring what the flag stands for. What's the opinions here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there are places on this planet that if you speak out against your government in even the slightest way, you are immediately silenced. The United States is one of only a few places where such a thing is allowed.

There are quite a few European countries where this is allowed at least... The prime minister of Norway is a spineless coward, so there! :P

 

Does anyone see this as a step in the direction of America turning into such a country? Since President Bush's first term, there's been quite a take down on public protest. Is this just one more restriction being placed on the public?

I think that first of all, we can all agree that no laws is no good. We need some guidelines on what is acceptable behaviour, and I think most people agree on the majority of laws. There should be a law against driving like a madman - what people disagree on is the punishment. There should be a law against killing people - again what people disagree on is the punishment and it's methods. Feel free to disagree, as I only state what I believe to be true.

 

With this established, the next question is where to draw the line. Should we have laws against throwing garbage on the street? Burning the flag? Spitting on the sidewalk? Well, hard to say. Too many laws restrict people's freedom, while too few doesn't restrict it enough. In my opinion, as long as the law is logical, I am all for it. Should we throw garbage on the street? No! Should we burn our flag? No! Laws against that is fine. But laws against spitting on the street? I think we can manage without that. It is taking it too far, as spit on the street doesn't really do any harm.

 

I think most people agree that streets filled up with garbage is a bad thing. Regarding the flag, some might see burning it as some sort of tribute. But if you check around, I am fairly confident most people view is as a sign of disrespect, and thus it's fine with a law against it.

 

In general, I think we have too many rights these days. If I were in charge, you can be sure I would clench the streets of beggars, drunks and drug addicts. Retarded Norwegian laws state that you can't force people away from slowly destroying their lives. It's illegal to kill yourself, but doing it slowly with drugs is fine. Let's not worry about ALL the people around these - be that mothers, sons or brothers - because we have to look out for people's "rights". This whole thing disgusts me! If there are fairly clear evidence of you destroying your life (like being found on the street with a needle in your arm repeatedly), you should be forced into rehab. Then you should be held there until you're through, or die from old age or a damaged body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are quite a few European countries where this is allowed at least... The prime minister of Norway is a spineless coward, so there!

 

The mere fact tthat you can say that gives me respect for the prime minister of Norway... Whoever HE is.

 

Flag burning? I don't see why not. The flag represents the country, and if you wanna protest peacefully, it's an obvious message to use.

 

I don't like the idea of people worshipping a flag to the point where they would ban you from setting fire to some cloth and dye. It's just a symbol. And if you don't have the freedom to mess with that which (at some point) was considered the symbol of freedom, I think that says a lot about what that flag represents...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there was a furore over this initially, but I thought it was legal for Americans to burn their flag? Wasn't there a Supreme Court decision or something?

I didn't know it had been made illegal again.

As BB says, it's just a symbol. People shouldn't get too fixated on it.

 

@Slaughter: There's no way you can FORCE someone into rehab, sadly. They have to want to quit, otherwise they will just pick up the habit again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Slaughter:  There's no way you can FORCE someone into rehab, sadly.  They have to want to quit, otherwise they will just pick up the habit again.

I'm not talking keeping them there for two weeks and sending them back to the people they wasted their lives with to begin with... But I'm at work now, so I have no time to get into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people want to destroy themselves, however unpleasant it may be. I don't think anyone has the right to decide what another human being should be doing, or interfere in what they have chosen to do, as long as it's not hurting others.

Ultimately, I think we're only responsible to ourselves for our actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmmm, keep in mind that drug addicts aren't only hurting themselves. And while people do have the right to make their own decisions, we don't tend to give that right to minors, on the basis that they lack the experience and mental complexity to understand what they're doing... But... Isn't a drug addict in a similar situation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drug addicts are usually adults, and usually capable of deciding their own fate. In my post above, I meant 'hurt' as in physical hurt, as there's nothing you can do to stop someone hurting another person emotionally/mentally. I realise that the sort of thing in my post above is an ideal, and that the real world forces us to put strictures on members of society, because we're not all nice people.

But drug addicts are just unfortunate. They're not weak, or mentally unbalanced. For most, life is just too shit to put up with straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very high rate of unemployment in South Wales after the coal mines closed down. It is not easy to get work in a different area because employers want someone who lives locally and can start immediatly. Many young people have come to see life as being inherently futile, so they tend to turn to drug and alcohol abuse, which just makes things worse. I cannot see the situation getting better unless there is some pretty major economic restructuring.

 

On the other end of the scale, someone who used to work in the financial centre of London once told me that many young men who work there regularly take cocaine as a stimulant to cope with the stress of their jobs. It is a bit worrying when you are told that your country's economy is in the hands of a group of drug addicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BB: Well said! My thoughts exactly.

 

@FA: If they wanted to destroy themselves, couldn't they just do the decent thing and jump off a cliff? Walking around our cities like zombies begging isn't a desire to destroy themselves, it's a scream for help. Quite a few of them were no more than kids when they got involved with the wrong people and ended up as addicts. Problem is that the "help" they receive now are two weeks of VOLUNTEER :P rehab and straight back to the old crew.

 

@AT: Yeah, the unemployment is probably one of many reasons people start. We don't really have an issue with this in Norway at present, but it's been a problem before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point, Slaughter, but sometimes it isn't about destroying themselves, sometimes it's about escapism, and it goes too far. What else can you do? Being an addict isn't a crime. Drugs aren't the issue, because if it was, alcohol would have been banned by now (approx 5,000 deaths in the UK alone). Drug abuse is just a symptom of the underlying problems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, there are many sides to this, but I am fairly confident that a more...aggressive rehab sort of program could do some good. And I sincerely believe that the ones that have gone "over the edge" should be treated the way BB mentioned - like minors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is well known that a lot of drug addicts resort to crime to fund their addiction. The standard solution in Britain is to lock them up in prison for a few months. Trouble is, they are usually still drug addicts when they are released. I would like to see more rehab programmes in prisons.

 

It would cost money to do, but there would be a long term saving, both for the government and society, as reoffending rates would drop.

 

Just a thought: if a person does not have the right to mistreat his body with drugs, what about when a poor diet leads to obesity? I've got this vision of John Prescott being forced to go jogging at bayonet point :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am undecided on what to do with drug addicts...

 

I once listened in on a conversation that involved this somewhere. Two people, debating the two extremes.

 

The first point was making all drugs perfectly legal and let people kill themselves, so long as they don't hurt anyone else. In doing so, crime syndicates and drug dealers no longer will make their money, as the black market for narcotics would no longer exist, and a bag of weed can be purchased at your local market. People could buy heroine and kill themselves if they pleased, thusly ridding our world of one more idiot.

 

The discussed end result was that anyone that chose to kill themself with drugs would have the right to, and would die as the rest of the more mature world would move on without them cluttering up our lives. Not only that, established drug networks, ranging from the schmoe that grows weed in his basement to powerful Drug Cartels, would lose business utterly and completely. Not only that... The money gained from selling the drugs alone would really do a number on American economy.

 

The second point was the complete opposite. Severely increase the punishment for drug use/possession and take a greater offensive when one is tested positive in a drug test. Also, rehab would force people to stay, much like a ward or prison. This is done in order to create a greater deterrant for drug crimes.

 

The result they discussed, was that more people would be inclined to find and/or use narcotic elements for fear of dire consequences. (40 years in prison was discussed by the guys I heard talking about it... Although I feel that's extreme.) The more severe deterent would make people too afraid to even look at a bag of weed. And the dealers that be would lose their profits at a steady rate.

 

I personally can see a greater logic in the former idea, to be honest. But at the same time, I feel that there just may be an incredible swell of death and addiction before people ever started to learn. The latter looks like an extremely slow process, not likely reaching some people, as most whom use drugs are not likely thinking of any consequences enough to be afraid of any...

 

Well, I was gonna make a final point after all this, but it seems that in recalling that memory there... I forgot it completely. >_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usage would spike, and then decline. Look at Prohibition.

 

As for freedom, are we free to kill ourselves? Yes, we are. So we should be free to do anything short of that, logically.

Look at it this way. You can go out and drink. But alcohol is a poison. It kills brain cells and damages the liver. But it's legal. It's legal to drink so much, in fact, that you die.

Whereas illegal drugs (which thanks to the War on Drugs, are cheaper and a lot more pure), some of which don't damage you, or damage you a lot less than alcohol or nicotine, have this stigma associated with them, like being an alcoholic or smoking sixty a day is any less shameful than using cocaine or heroin.

If you shove people into rehab against their will, they'll resent the treatment, and they'll go right back to drugs as soon as they get out, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends. Some drug addicts spend their time hiding in the bath tub hiding from demons. I can't see them resenting people who drag them out of that state.

 

Addicts who are quite that unbalanced might not appreciate it... But I'd consider such people to be idiots, and if I was a dictator, I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions. :P

 

Edit: Bah, spelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drugs? Wasn't this about flags? :D

 

Anyhow, the recent ban on burning the American flag has little to do about popular opinion from the citizens. It is actually more political in nature. There was no vote/referendum asking us what we thought. Congressmen passed this law because they have too much time on their hands. j/k :P

 

A ban on burning the flag had everything to do with Patriotism, though. Everyone in the United States was scared after the terrorist attacks in 2001. People who disagreed with President Bush's opinions were immediately labeled as unloyal and frowned upon. You know, the old "United we stand, divided we fall" statement. It just became common practice by most people not to "rock the boat" since somehow the words "unloyal" and "unpatriotic" became one and the same.

 

We have a thing called the "Constitution" here in the US. In it is a collection of 10 "Amendments" which describes in detail what rights are guaranteed to us by the government (aka, the Bill of Rights). The very FIRST amendment says this:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Read literally, it gives everyone the right to peacefully gather, protest and petition the government at any time without reprimand (freedom of speech). Is burning the flag considered a form of protest? Sure. Is it illegal? Nope. It is a guaranteed civil right. Unfortunately, being "unpatriotic" now equates to breaking the law.

 

The reason why people did this in the past was to get a reaction, not to get their way. Like everyone here said, the flag is a symbol. And desecrating any symbol is considered blasphemous and not in good etiquette.

 

Seriously, I couldn't care less about people burning the flag. I personally would never do that since there are other more fruitful methods to protest. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drugs? Yeah, we kinda rambled into a more generic rights discussion.

 

Last I heard the American goverment is passing a few laws lately which contradict the constitution. I saw a show a while back which claims that if someone is a suspected terrorist, then a new law allows the goverment to raid his house without any obligation of informing him about what they have done.

 

I'm not a great student of constitutional law (except for the bit about the vacuum cleaner), but I gather there's something in there which has been fairly blatently squashed by that law.

 

It's all for the freedom of American citizens, of course.

 

Ah, here we go! A list of the amendments! :D There we go, amendment 4 succesfully trashed. Unless of course, breaking in unannounced with no evidence or warrent is considered 'reasonable'. Ahem.

 

Now all I need is an official link detailing the law in particular... Bah, my work break is nearly over. But, if you copy and paste chunks from the amendments into google, along with Bush's name, it makes for a lot of interesting reading. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, I couldn't care less about people burning the flag. I personally would never do that since there are other more fruitful methods to protest

 

It'd get some attention for whatever you're protesting though, wouldn't it? And that's what you need to do.

Sadly, America seems to be getting more and more famous for not living up to the Constitution.

This reminds me. I've been thinking about this a long while, and mentioning the Amendments brought it to my mind again. The second amendment, and the whole gun control issue...I'm not sure I understand. You've got the NRA and suchlike, who are all conservative types (Republicans?) who are the "pry it from my cold, dead fingers" crowd and then there's the liberals (no, it's not a dirty word) who seem to be in favour of stronger gun control.

I realise I'm generalising, I apologise, but what I don't get is that the liberals should surely be in favour of the second amendment and gun possession in general, seeing as it's a supposed guarantor of civil rights, not to mention a right in itself.

I don't know if I've got it twisted, but it just seems odd. Surely the conservative types should be for gun control, being bow-to-authority kind of people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I heard the American goverment is passing a few laws lately which contradict the constitution. I saw a show a while back which claims that if someone is a suspected terrorist, then a new law allows the goverment to raid his house without any obligation of informing him about what they have done.

 

This would be the Patriot Act, passed by Bush himself. It's sent innocent Americans into a scared frenzy. I even know somebody that refuses to say Bush's name through a messenger. >_<

 

@ Fullauto)

 

I can't say for sure, I think it's the more pacifistic mindset. I am not liberal myself, but I often find myself following their views. Gun control being one of them.

 

I think it's the more pacifistic mindset there. Liberals are often the ones that want to talk and sort things out while Conservatives sometimes take a more "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude and back it up with the very weapons they protect. (Not all of them do this, fortunately, but I see it happen frequently.)

 

In regards to Gun Control... I once saw a paper listing the reasons why people should own guns. Only two things came up, the Ammendment to bear arms, and defending your home from criminal activity. Now, I'm all for that amendment, but at the same time I feel there should be required training (More extensive than it is now) for a license to own a sidearm. Because... Ahem... May I see a raise of hands of how many gun owners have managed to fend off a household intruder with a firearm? Or hell, even someone that had an intruder and would've done good to have had a gun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
  • Create New...