This morning, I was simultaneously listening in on CNN (hyping Harris absurdly), MSNBC (well, you know) and Fox News, where the morning trio of hyper-partisan clowns were hosting Trump in a 30 minute phone monologue. First, I got a laugh when a CNN reporter commented on Harris having to navigate the complexities of Israel’s war with Gaza (Hamas). He actually said, first, “This is a major issue for Harris” and five seconds later that “Republicans are trying to make an issue out of this.” Yes, Harris was one of the first Democrats to call for a cease fire in Gaza, essentially making sure Hamas’s adverse consequences for slaughtering and raping Israel civilians on October 7 were minimal, but because she was only a VP at the time, and, after all, Kamala Harris, Idiot, nobody paid much attention to how irresponsible that position was. It is an issue, of course, but CNN will try “Republicans pounce!” even when everyone should pounce.
My giggling over this—wait until the low-information voters hear all of the foolish and frightening things Harris has said over the last few years—was stifled quickly when I heard Trump tell “Fox and Friends,” in reaction to the Hamas-supporting rioters yesterday, that desecrating or burning the American Flag “should get a mandatory one year in prison.” Trump went on to say that anyone who claims such punishment was unconstitutional “is stupid,” and that Putin, Xi and other leaders around the world are “laughing” at the conduct the U.S. foolishly permits.
All the laughing leaders Trump mentioned are dictators, in nations without any free speech protections at all. That was a really stupid thing to say, but even stupider is Trump’s apparent belief that the symbolic action of desecrating an American flag isn’t protected speech. It is, and the Supreme Court so ruled in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Trump, of all people, shouldn’t be arguing that SCOTUS decisions don’t matter.
True, this was a 5-4 decision that split the liberals on the Court: John Paul Stevens agreed with Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice White and Justice O’Connor that the flag was sufficiently special that its desecration should be an exception to usual free speech principles. Never mind though: the vote doesn’t change the authority of the decision. A law punishing citizens for flag-burning is unconstitutional. (For what it’s worth, I agree with the majority.)
Once again, Trump’s big mouth and ignorance just play into the narrative that he is a fanatic nationalist who thinks various autocrats around the world have the right idea. His job in opposing the pro-censorship Left is to insist on freedom of speech even at its most offensive: can’t Trump figure that out? Give the Democrats half a chance, and they’ll try to pass laws making the burning or Pride flags a felony.
He’ll blow it yet.
Ethics Alarms 
I could explain it for him, but I couldn’t understand it for him…
yes burning our flag is a right protected by the amendment but it is still morally reprehensible.
And millions believe the same as you.
Again, though: so what? The exercise of First Amendment rights isn’t up for a vote.
Birds gotta sing…
Trump’s never going to stop saying whatever comes to his mind just because he’s running for president.
Yet, government can enhance penalties for some speech that it deems hateful. What Trump believes should be illegal is not the same as what he believes is
Illegal.
For some of us the flag does not represent the government it represents our American way of life, our cultural heritage or our desire to be free of government oppression.
Governments come and go but the flag stands for something larger than any and all of the three branches we give power to. We are not willing to die for any President, Senator, or SCOTUS justice. As such, burning the flag for many is no different than burning a cross on the grounds of a Bethel AME church.
If the burning of certain objects can result in criminal penalties but not if it is the flag because it is viewed as speech denouncing the government or a policy then I will stop pledging allegiance to the flag because I will never pledge fealty to any government or policy. I pledge allegiance to a symbol representing the ideals embodied in what it means to be an American.
If nothing else, Trump’s comment and this post made me think about what I actually am pledging allegiance to.
The point is that it can’t be illegal. That’s settled law. Saying something “should be” that can’t be is infantile.
It is settled at this point. The Dobbs decision settles something as well but if 38 states decide it wants to create a Constitutional Amendment banning – or vice versa the ability to kill babies it too will become settled law.
It was settled law that women could not vote at one point in our time. Prohibition changed settled law making something illegal. Using the idea that because something is settled at a point in time does not make it it infantile. A great number of women and beer drinkers would take umbrage at that position.
I am not arguing that burning the flag should be illegal I am arguing two points. The first is that such a burning is no different than burning a cross even though I believe both are reprehensible. Second, the first amendment provides for the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The flag is not the government it is a symbol of what America is not some temporal body whose policies with which we disagree. Theoretically, burning the flag is either hypocritical as it represents the very freedoms the burners are using or it hates those freedoms and is actively trying to destroy them. Burn all the effigies of people you want I don’t care.
One of the reasons I don’t take the Pro-Choice advocates seriously is because they are not using the democratic process to advance their national rights cause as the Suffragettes did. If they want that Constitutional right then change the Constitution not whine about it. Settled laws can be changed. The SCOTUS cannot rule unconstitutional a ratified amendment to the Constitution.
There has never been an Amendment to alter or limit the Bill of Rights, and it is a fair assumption that there never will be. Abortion was a manufactured right, not a foundational right. Passing an Amendment to expand rights is the American way: our one Amendment to limit rights (Prohibition) was a failed experiment.
Lots of rights permit reprehensible conduct. Irrelevant. Trump didn’t say it was morally reprehensible, he said it should be illegal.
Well, now, Jack. The pro-abortion people argued stare decisis should prohibit the overturning of Rowe v. Wade. I think people like the fact Trump has opinions and isn’t afraid to express them. Did he say he was going to issue an executive order making flag burning illegal? No. And of course, the AUC will pounce. But he’s never going to be prudent and defer to much of anyone or anything in speaking his mind. Remember, he’s not a politician and he certainly was never a scholar.
Flag-burning does not physically harm anyone (except perhaps through smoke inhalation), nor does it infringe on the rights of others.
As far as “moral reprehensibility” goes, I have a different take. I consider it merely pathetic. It’s pointless to castigate someone for burning a flag. Instead I would ask them what they expect to accomplish.
They’re dissatisfied with the country. Alright, fine. They want to show their dissatisfaction? They want some catharsis? Sure, whatever. Do they expect people to pay attention to them and take them more seriously when they burn a flag as an effigy? Is this their idea of persuasive rhetoric?
If people aren’t going to try and understand each other or come up with good ideas, then burning flags is just a pathetic and pointless gesture, but it’s even more pathetic for people to take offense and try to punish the people who burn flags.
How about talking with them, listening to them, and figuring out what they care about? That’s something people should be doing anyway. Encourage them to use their words. It doesn’t accomplish anything to take away a person’s way of expressing their feelings without showing them a more effective alternative.
EC
Not everyone wants to listen. More importantly, if the goal is to create chaos to weaken a system then there is nothing to listen to. People who tend to burn flags are not interested in dialogue they are engaging in throwing a tantrum. It is best to ignore them while they scream and holler as engaging with them will do little except lead to higher amplitude on your part.
I am not minimizing your tools. I am only saying that you have to catch people when they are behaving like adults.
I like your approach better than the one I described. That one incentivized obnoxious cries for attention, but I couldn’t think of how else to describe it. Thank you for providing what I was overlooking.
We can demonstrate a willingness to work with people who share the opinions as the flag burners but who know how to hold a civil conversation about their grievances. Then the flag burners will realize they’re only embarrassing themselves.
Increasing Kennedy’s odds maybe?
I don’t know. Endangering towns with fire has to be something you can arrest or at least use truncheons for.
The unsightly ashes and soot has to carry some level of vandalism crime for which arrest and use of truncheons against these civilization eaters is allowable.
It should be pointed out in this case the flags burned were removed from Union Station and replaced with Palestinian flags. One of the Proud boys – I think Entico Tarrio got a substantial prison sentence for taking a BLM banner.
Burning your own personal flag is one thing and is protected speech. However, taking down a nations flag which is property of another and burning that property and replacing it with a foreign flag is not protected speech. It is what enemy combatants do.
Someone needs to explain to protesters that behaving in the manner of an enemy combatant is grounds for prosecution.
That’s grounds for arrest and use of truncheons in my book.
Thanks for making my point Chris M. One only needs reasonable grounds to crack down on protestors and the legal sifting comes later. Being a timid westerner is what radical Islamists gleefully exploit. They have us figured out. Time to resist or gradually become a shithole country like where they were sent from. See Europe and their crime/rape stats associated with Muslim immigration.
The “outrage” demanding punishment is very selective. Burning. looting, US flag burning, etc is “protected” free speech and expression of emotions, but defacing a rainbow-colored street crossing or praying silently in front of an abortion clinic is a threat to our country’s values. Sigh.
That is a significant difference, Chris. Such action could construed as destruction of public property, not speech. It is similar to prosecuting a pickup truck driver for doing donuts on a gay or trans flag or BLM mural painted on the street at an intersection (leaving aside the propriety of a government painting social justice slogans on a public street, both of which were/are bought and paid for by taxpayer dollars).
jvb
Yes, that is what I find most outrageous, but the courts find to be just fine. That is also why I think the denunciation of Trump may be misguided. I think Trump is just stating what most people think. Why is it OK for leftist protesters to take American flags off public buildings (or my house) and burn them, but it is a major crime for someone to do a burnout on a ‘gay pride’ image in the roadway? If I buy a Mexican flag or gay pride flag with my own money and burn it, I can be charged with crimes. I think the massive double standard is not supported by the vast majority of Americans.
Wait a minute: if our leaders just say what “most people think,” that’s leadership from behind. Most people are ignorant, biased, impulsive and emotion-driven boobs when it comes to law and public policy. They need to be guided, not parroted.
But the anger of the people needs to be recognized. What good is democracy or a republic if the will of the people is ignored because the elites think otherwise? One of the reasons Trump is popular is because he says what everyone is thinking. Why IS it OK for them to take the American flag off my house and burn it, but if I bought a BLM or Palestinian or Mexican flag and burned it, I could go to jail? Why is one protected free speech and the other one isn’t? It doesn’t make any sense unless you subscribe to the idea that laws are for little people and Republicans. People took the American flags off a public building, replaced them with foreign flags, and burned the American ones. Why can that not be illegal? Courts may have ruled that that is permissible free speech, but I don’t think an amendment is needed to change that. It is just a biased opinion from biased judges.
Indeed Michael R. Creatively punish (crush) these medieval morons whose unmistakable goal is to dismantle our culture, our way of life, our republic. Did these fuckers have a permit to march en masse? Let’s look into that – oops can’t find a permit, and that’s not even being creative.
The question is; how committed are we to protecting our way life, culture, republic? Let’s not look to the woke European countries for the answer. Paris Olympics could be educational.
Have a nice day…🤠
I don’t want to crush protesters but I do want to see equal treatment under the law. Protest all you want but the minute you impose costs on third parties you have stopped speaking and are now destroying. We had protesters inside the Capitol illegally but few are charged with being in restricted space (protesting inside is prohibited) as so many J6 people were. We heard ad nauseam about the dollar value of the damage done by the J6 rioters but not a whisper on the damages rioters yesterday or during the 3 day siege on the WhiteHouse while Trump was in office.
Bottom line is this: Protest all you want but do it legally and on your own dime.
What about the pro-Hamas protesters who took over the Capitol this week? What about the #Metoo people who stopped the Kavanaugh hearings numerous times?
Burning their country’s flag should be the right of any citizen, but if any visitor to that country burns that country’s flag then they should be deported.
Were any of the participants in this flag burning foreigners?
A bigger problem is that the American flag was removed from government building and replaced with the flag of a foreign government. This is normally a signal that the area has been conquered and is now the territory of the current flag. The burning of the former flag emphasizes that. As an American citizen and member of the milita, am I required to shoot them?
Before anyone says “That isn’t what they are doing?” if I asked that mob “Are you claiming this area for Palestine?” What do you think their answer would be? If they want to cosplay insurrection, they should be ready to reap the consequences.
I was house counsel in a company with a CEO something like Trump (well, a lot more likeable, not an a-hole, but anyways…). He was constantly brainstorming and would sometimes come up with, in my mind, clearly illegal business plans. He would enthusiastically rattle them off in front of anyone and everyone, and then I would talk with him about the problems, he would whine a bit, and then quickly move on. Honestly, he was the most creative and productive person I have ever met. And he would take my advice in dumping the bad ideas. I hope that – and have some sense that – Trump is a bit like that in being overly boisterous with his thoughts, but quick to let go and move on from the really obviously wrong ones when he is eventually informed. On the flag issue (and many other legal issues in the past), it is disconcerting/shocking that he is not already more informed before opening his mouth, of course – and giving ammo to the people saying he wants to be a dictator – but hopefully he abandons that talk quickly. I can hope anyway…
In my experience, that is exactly what the CEO,business school bred, ambitious, creative, entrepreneural, problen-solving, Type A personality leader who succeeds in business is like. I worked for one too, and he was, in his element, brilliant and inspiring, but he relied on getting good advice, and having respectful but candid advisors who would stand up to him and talk him out of bad ideas. And who would ask “How high?” when he said, “Jump!”
He could certainly be an asshole, but usually he was just goal oriented, and if he reached his goal, he was easy to get long with. Best supervisor I ever had, and I learned a lot.