Talk:Flag Desecration Amendment

Title

Umm... this may be overly pedantic, but shouldn't the title of this article be The "Anti Flag Desecration Amendment"? It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people say the opposite of what they mean. Reminds me of those people who describe themselves as "Domestic Violence Advocates".Flarity 06:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually TO be overly pedantic here, both of the examples have alternate interpretations than what you think and are, in fact, correct. The title of the article for instance, in the meaning apparent by the content of the article, could be properly parsed as "[The] Amendment [with regards to] Flag Desecration." Whereas advocate, in addition to meaning one who supports a particular point of view, can also mean a lawyer or alternatively just an intercessor. Granted these uses are ambiguous, but many commonly used words are ambiguous. The verb 'dust' for instance means both "to remove dust" (i.e. with a feather duster) and "to apply dust" ( i.e. dust with sugar, or dust for fingerprints). Context is the most important indicator of a word's meaning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.102.196.37 (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Which states have passed these bills? Mark Richards 21:38, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

:Or rather, which one didn't? --Andreidude 13:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This little bit of trivia caused me to do some research, and according to CNN, the one state is Vermont. The "49 out of 50" number is according to the "Citizens Flag Alliance". --Minesweeper 01:53, Dec 1, 2004 (UT

What's a flag

I would be really interested to see how Congress defines "flag". For example, my home town has a 4th of July parade. The streets are lined with small paper flags stuck into the ground on wooden sticks. Also, people along the route wave small paper flags passed out by various civic groups. After the holiday, nearly all of these flags are tossed into the trash or are combined with other recyclable, discarded paper. Under the law, would these be "flags"? I understand the emotion behind this amendment. But, it appears as if Congress has not thought this one through - yet.

I have removed the use of 'America' (except in quotations), to make it clear that this is about the flag of the USA and not the continent of America Markb 14:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Man, I've been looking at a map of the world for like an hour now, and I can't find any continent called "America", can you help a brotha out? It's weird, I'm 23 and all my life I've been under the impression that it was a country! InSANE!

/* What's a flag? What's desecration?*/

What about a t-shirt with a flag on it? What about a drawing of a flag? What about a poor drawing of a flag? What about a vivid oil painting of a flag ablaze? What about a real cloth flag which contains some fancy lighting device that makes it LOOK like it is on fire?

It's not just fire either, right? It's all desecration. So, what about a flag jigsaw puzzle? What about a big delicious fourth of july cake decorated with an image of Old Glory? Better not take a bite!

This is freaking nonsense. What is to fear about flag burning? If someone hates the country, so what? They are free to express themselves. We have the right to stand on the sidewalk of the busiest streets in the country and scream, "This country, and it's leaders, all suck!" Why not let others express themselves by burning, shredding or taking a leak on a flag? Fear those who fear criticism.

What makes our country great is that it was founded on the promise to protect the free expression of ideas. Our forefathers are rolling in their graves right now.

Next year, you can't deface a flag. The year after that, you can't say anything which doesn't praise Christianity.

This is not a political issue, it's an IQ test for our politicians and the public. So far we're flunking. If this passes I'll spend the day banging my head on the wall - HOW STUPID! What makes people think that they are smarter than our Founding Fathers who wrote The Constitution in the first place? Passing this amendment will cause fruit loops to come out and burn flags AND it will clog our courts with stupid cases AND it will result in the USA haveing political prisoners in its jails. How much more STUPID could a law be? By the way, I'm a fairly conservative Republican who voted for Bush both times, so you can cut the hippie hating BS. Thanx, ReS

ReS, you beat me to it on the T-shirt issue, etc. I was posting the same basic opinion you posted but yours got up there first, so I'll avoid repetition. Also, I was taught in Boy Scouts that the proper way to dspose of an old tattered flag was to bury or burn it -- so will that be changed, or will I be charged with burning? rooster613

You'll be sent to prison for the rest of your life, you flag murderer you!! Anyway, as much as I agree with you guys, this talk page is here for discussion of changes to the article, not to debate the issue itself. 72.200.139.248 01:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Flag Desecration Amendment

This article should be moved to Flag Desecration Amendment, as the proposed amendment itself refers to desecration (which may not involved burning at all), and would likely not prohibit non-desecratory flag burning. Any opinions on the matter? -- BD2412 ^talk 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, article moved. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Desecration" means whatever the Great Leader and High Priest chooses it to mean. Right now any criticism of benevolent Christian torture, spying, secret prisons, and the fascist policy of permanent war would be considered physical desecration of the glorious flag by Bushies, although they would need higher poll numbers to enforce their interpretation. After all, speech is physical and the exercise thereof to criticize those wrapped in flags (while alive) can be interpreted by Condi and Alberto as desecration.

Has anyone heard of any American flags being burned on American soil as a protest against anything that is supposed to be great about America, like any clause of the First Amendment or the Civil Rights Act or the now-fictional exceptional social and financial mobility? In fact, have there been any protest burnings about even the anti-American policies of the Bushies? Was anyone injured? Did it do anything whatsoever to advance the cause of the protestors? (Hint: Aside from bigots and fascists, the answer to the first question is almost certainly "No." The second might be "Yes," but the number is certainly puny. The third is almost certainly "No." The last is definitely "No") This Amendment is a wedge issue; if it passes, the slippery sloped camel's nose is in the tent and the way is open to erode the First Amendment with more amendments until there are individual rights at all, but lots of property rights. In Jefferson's words, we should not prohibit anything that "neither picks [our] pockets nor breaks [our] bones."

Anyway, the article is slanted toward the anti-First-Amendment side and should be fixed. I just have time to change "countless" to "several" because there are not uncountable jurisdictions in this country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fairandbalanced (talk • contribs) .

Merge with Flag desecration in the United States

Not sure which way to move it, but the two articles seem to have virtually the same content so I don't see the point of having it duplicated. MartinMcCann 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was going to object, but I looked at both articles and realized, yeah, there's a lot of duplication - merge both under the heading of Flag desecration in the United States unless and until the Amendment passes. bd2412 T 18:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per BD2412. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge I would just delete the Flag desecration in the United States article and keep the current article the way it is. Proposed and failed amendments to the Constitution deserve their own pages. --MZMcBride 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge I agree with MZMcBride. The proposed Constitutional amendments should have their own pages. However, there is not much information on the other page. What information is necessary from the other article can be added to this one. Byrdin2006 17:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge I don't think these two wikipedia entries should be merged, they are clearly 2 separate things. The Flag Desecration Amendment is a huge deal to some folks, like myself and is a separate issue from past acts of flag burning in the United States. It would be sort of like merging the 2nd Amendment entry with the entry on the NRA.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.0.62 (talk • contribs) .

Well, I went ahead and redirected "flag desecration in the US" to this article before realizing there was a debate on this talk page. Frankly, there was nothing to merge. The content of the other article was substantially identical, though less comprehensive, than this article. I think the flag desecration in the US article could be re-created and expanded significantly, but it was not serving any purpose other than to distract the reader from this more thorough article as it was. If anyone disagrees, feel free to undo my redirect; I apologize for not looking here first. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 02:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

People burn the flag because they have somthing to say it is an act of freedom of speach, an act against political repression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.67.237 (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

B4JWf5 comment

I feel that there should be no arugment about this subject; there is but one clear solution, which is to pass the amendment. Folks, let's face it--the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and we should face the fact that this is but a small part of life. The law would be but a simple gesture toward everyone who cherishes the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B4JWf5 (talk • contribs)

• That would legally turn the flag into a Holy Relic, and it would no longer be "our" flag, but someone else's. Wahkeenah 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe you to be an idiot. I have never had any desire to burn a flag, but if this disgusting amendment were ever to befoul the lofty pages of our constitution, I would burn a flag on the steps of the state capitol the next day. Maybe you would feel more at home in North Korea or Iran. Guess what they do to flag burners there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.121.83 (talk • contribs) 15:55 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Or a Republican. Wahkeenah 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If you don't let America-haters burn the flag, how are you gonna know they hate America? It's not like you can read minds. Stopping an America-hater from burning the flag doesn't stop them from hating America, it only stops you from knowing who they are. TodKarlson (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Har har har.

"The concept of flag burning continues to provoke a heated debate". Hilarious. 207.224.94.91 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe they could get around the lack of a flag burning amendment by arguing that burning the flag in protest constitutes "inflammatory" speech. Wahkeenah 18:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • lulz.

Removed one of the polls

One of the polls cited in the article was an unscientific CNN poll, which is not a good source of polling information; I've noticed on many occaision those polls give wildly inaccurate results. Additionally, while the article claimed over half of those who voted in the poll were for the amendment, I just checked the poll and it was actually at 32% for, 68% against. Titanium Dragon 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Make them too expensive

Let's just make the flag too expensive for anyone to buy so that no one would dare burn it. User:66.45.219.144 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• There ya go. Wahkeenah 00:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Birthday cakes?

The broad wording of the amendment would indeed allow for the Congress to declare a birthday cake on a flag to be considered "desecration" (or "dessert-cration"). That's how an amendment should be worded. However, it's a potential trap, and people who stop and think about it know that. The amendment would lead to much vigorous debate on the question of what is a flag and what is desecration... and possibly a significant reduction of the public displays of the flag, for fear of being accused of desecration (such as leaving it out in the rain - or putting it on a birthday cake). End of editorial. Delete if you want to. :) Wahkeenah 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that leads to the perennial n-1 debate - if a line is drawn, then some scurrilious protester will try to get as close to the line as possible without actually crossing it (e.g. burning red white and blue cocktail napkins, or burning a twelve-striped red white and dark teal flag). bd2412 T 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, Congress would also have power to define what "the U.S. Flag" actually is. Wahkeenah 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not without limitation. If I paint a toaster with random orange and purple stars and stripes, I doubt that Congress could craft a definition of that phrase that would prevent me from taking a hammer to it. Courts will find themselves faced with the question of what the original intent of Congress was when they wrote those words - what did the framers of the Amendment mean by "flag"? bd2412 T 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If the amendment is broadly worded enough, it would be without limitation. Congress could define what the flag is as well as what constitutes desecration. But if they made it too strict, people would probably stop displaying the flag altogether, in any form, and then there would be calls for somebody's head. More narrowly, the U.S. already has pretty strict guidelines as to the layout of the flag. Also, you can do anything you like to a flag in private. Wahkeenah 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... this article seems rather biased against the bill. I think that making flag burning illegal would be bad for the integrity of the country, but then a truly democratic person cannot deny another's opinion simply because it is undemocratic. Anyways, I would support a complete rewrite of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a difference in the length of the opposing arguments? It seems to me that they should be given equal coverage of this controversial issue. Those who oppose the desecration of a flag as a form of "expression" have as much right to express themselves in the U.S. as those who disagree, and that should be reflected in this article.

Romulo San Juan de Soto (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Romulo San Juan de Soto, 3 June 2008

How would you propose to address that? Make the section for proponents wordier? Remove arguments actually raised in opposition? Perhaps the argument in favor is simply naturally more succint, and would lose power if embellished upon. bd2412 T 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Flag burning is irrelevant

The comments regarding flag burning should be excised. This amendment does not mention burning, combustion, fire, smoke, or any other means of altering a flag by the application of heat. It refers to "desecration," a deliberately vague term the Bush Supremes could interpret as any criticism of the President or any other politician wrapped in the American flag or wearing a flag lapel. All speech is physical, and all criticism of right wing politicians can be interpreted as desecration, just like drawings of Mohammed. No one has been burning flags in America as a means of protest because it would be counterproductive. If they did do so, it would probably be a violation of some municipal burning ordinance. Aside from the danger of open fires in the public square, the only damage would be that some people would feel disgust and some crackpots may become violent (and hopefully prosecuted). Most flags are made in China anyway; if they want to protect Americans, they should be preventing desecration of working people.

When politicians attempt to limit the First Amendment in any way, their motives should be highly suspect. When they do so without even the pretense of a compelling reason, their motives are either cynical or sinister and they should be removed from office at the next election if not sooner, no matter what else they have done. Fairandbalanced (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need a picture for this?

Seriously, the picture is just there to offend US citizens. --Rockstone (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This picture is of US Citizens in Keene, New Hampshire burning the flag. If I had to guess, I'd wager, judging by the rest of the album, that they are part of the Free State Project. I see no harm in the picture, it's worth 1000 words and makes you think - perhaps react gutturally. Does it make you angry? It makes me angry. But I believe that, as Americans, they are in their right to burn a flag (except the fire itself is probably illegal), and the fact that we are so free makes me happy. CSZero (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually of the opinion that a picture for the lede should more clearly indicate the issue. Since desecration can occur in manners other than burning (and since not all burning is intentional desecration), we should have an image of a flag being intentionally damaged in a manner other than burning. It is not at all clear from the image itself that the burning flag in this image was intentionally set on fire as a means of making a statement. bd2412 T 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

File:J20 corporate flag dc.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:J20 corporate flag dc.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

"Interpretation" section tagged for original research

There are insufficient sources about the subtopic. So I tagged it as "original research". --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Most of the points made in the section are supported by the First Amendment Center article. I have now fixed the link to that article. bd2412 T 20:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Flag Desecration Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327072536/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15418 to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15418
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610213518/http://washingtonobserver.org/en/document.cfm?documentid=58&charid=3 to http://washingtonobserver.org/en/document.cfm?documentid=58&charid=3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)