(no subject)
So I read an article today about how Congress narrowly failed passing a bill to ban flag burning. You may remember this issue from The Simpsons, in a bit parodying School House Rock. Quoting that,
"There's a lot of flag-burners / who have got too much freedom / I wanna make it legal for policemen / to beat 'em / 'Cause there's limits to our liberties / Least I hope and pray that there are / 'Cause those liberal freaks go too far."
"Why don't we just make a law against flag burning?"
"Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we change the Constitution…"
"Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!"
"Now you're catching on!"
I also found this:
[Senator Wayne] Allard [R-CO] said that a flag-burning ban would not be a restriction on speech, "only on the means the speaker chooses to communicate."
Does that set off anybody else's bullshit detectors? Why not just make peaceful demonstrations, underground newspapers, critical books, newspapers, and websites, and personal discussions illegal? Those are also just ways of choosing to communicate. By this guy's logic, we could make illegal every way of communication other than carving opinions onto the side of a limestone block in the center of the Tidal Basin, and it would still be perfectly in line with the freedom of speech outlined in the Bill of Rights.
By the way, if this had passed, it would have been the first amendment ever to have altered the Bill of Rights.
See if you can guess who spearheaded this crusade? (Clue: Orrin H.)
Addendum. I went to Senator Allard's website and submitted the following to him:
Sir,
Today I found this quotation from you in an article in the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3986618)
[Senator Wayne] Allard [R-CO] said that a flag-burning ban would not be a restriction on speech, "only on the means the speaker chooses to communicate."
By your logic, we could make peaceful demonstrations, underground newspapers, critical books, newspapers, and websites, and personal discussions illegal as well without abrogating the freedom of speech, because those too are just ways people choose to communicate. Indeed, we could make illegal every manner of communication other than carving opinions onto the side of a limestone block in the center of the Tidal Basin, and it would still be perfectly in line with the freedom of speech outlined in the Bill of Rights.
I don't think that this is consistent with the aims of the Constitution. Freedom of speech means the freedom to put forth opinions in any way one sees fit, although I would argue that this liberty only extends to communications which don't directly hurt people (for example, if a flag-burner were to use the flag to light a house on fire). Just because speech is offensive to some does not mean it should be restricted.
I realize that you probably will not see this, and that if you did, it probably would not change your opinion. But you (or the underling filtering this) should bear in mind that the purpose of the freedoms outlined in the Constitution isn't to give Americans a narrow set of circumstances in which they can act: it is to prevent oppression of exactly the sort that you are now a proponent of.
What separates our system from Fascism is that we can voice our opinions without being called unpatriotic. To wish any less for the American people is a disservice to everything this country stands for.
Yours in freedom,
Alexander White
After I submitted it, I was given a new page proudly saying
Thanks for expressing your view!
I found this both ironic and a little depressing.
"There's a lot of flag-burners / who have got too much freedom / I wanna make it legal for policemen / to beat 'em / 'Cause there's limits to our liberties / Least I hope and pray that there are / 'Cause those liberal freaks go too far."
"Why don't we just make a law against flag burning?"
"Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we change the Constitution…"
"Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!"
"Now you're catching on!"
I also found this:
[Senator Wayne] Allard [R-CO] said that a flag-burning ban would not be a restriction on speech, "only on the means the speaker chooses to communicate."
Does that set off anybody else's bullshit detectors? Why not just make peaceful demonstrations, underground newspapers, critical books, newspapers, and websites, and personal discussions illegal? Those are also just ways of choosing to communicate. By this guy's logic, we could make illegal every way of communication other than carving opinions onto the side of a limestone block in the center of the Tidal Basin, and it would still be perfectly in line with the freedom of speech outlined in the Bill of Rights.
By the way, if this had passed, it would have been the first amendment ever to have altered the Bill of Rights.
See if you can guess who spearheaded this crusade? (Clue: Orrin H.)
Addendum. I went to Senator Allard's website and submitted the following to him:
Sir,
Today I found this quotation from you in an article in the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_3986618)
[Senator Wayne] Allard [R-CO] said that a flag-burning ban would not be a restriction on speech, "only on the means the speaker chooses to communicate."
By your logic, we could make peaceful demonstrations, underground newspapers, critical books, newspapers, and websites, and personal discussions illegal as well without abrogating the freedom of speech, because those too are just ways people choose to communicate. Indeed, we could make illegal every manner of communication other than carving opinions onto the side of a limestone block in the center of the Tidal Basin, and it would still be perfectly in line with the freedom of speech outlined in the Bill of Rights.
I don't think that this is consistent with the aims of the Constitution. Freedom of speech means the freedom to put forth opinions in any way one sees fit, although I would argue that this liberty only extends to communications which don't directly hurt people (for example, if a flag-burner were to use the flag to light a house on fire). Just because speech is offensive to some does not mean it should be restricted.
I realize that you probably will not see this, and that if you did, it probably would not change your opinion. But you (or the underling filtering this) should bear in mind that the purpose of the freedoms outlined in the Constitution isn't to give Americans a narrow set of circumstances in which they can act: it is to prevent oppression of exactly the sort that you are now a proponent of.
What separates our system from Fascism is that we can voice our opinions without being called unpatriotic. To wish any less for the American people is a disservice to everything this country stands for.
Yours in freedom,
Alexander White
After I submitted it, I was given a new page proudly saying
Thanks for expressing your view!
I found this both ironic and a little depressing.