Flag Burning

This has been hot in the news recently, where our government tried to push through a Constitutional Amendment to ban the burning of the flag.

First, I'm glad to see that our government has solved all the other pressing issues of our day. Obviously Social Security is in the clear, the Health Care system is in perfect shape, and the War on Terror is well on its way to being won. Obviously the problems of the economy and the recession are well under control, and all the other social problems have been solved. Right?

Luckily, the measure failed to pass, and I'm very gratified to see it. I'm also desperately frightened by the fact that it only failed by one vote in the Senate.

Why am I frightened? Was I planning on going out and torching Old Glory? Of course not. I have the utmost respect for the flag and what it stands for -- and it is for that exact reason that I am strongly against outlawing the burning of the flag. I believe that you cannot protect the flag by destroying part of what it stands for -- and part of what it stands for is freedom of speech.

What the Flag Means
This is, of course, a deeply personal thing for all of us. The flag, very simply, is the symbol of our country. It is the symbol of everything this country stands for and has stood for. It represents the revolutionary concepts of liberty and justice, and equality before the law, that were so revolutionary (literally!) in the founding of this Nation.

It represents our continual striving to do the right thing. More than any other Nation, we as Americans have tried to do the right thing, even when we have had little to gain. We have rushed to other Nations' defense against evil even when we ourselves were not involved. We have sent millions if not billions of tons of food to countries that were starving. We are the most generous nation on the planet in terms of aid sent to other places on the globe.

It represents our founding principles, the idea that people can be free to make their own choices. It represents an ideal that people have fought for and died for, laying their very lives on the line to defend. It is the symbol of our nation, of all the people who make up this great country. It is a rallying point for all those who believe that this is the greatest country on earth, and who believe in the principles which we share.

And one of the principles that that flag represents is the First Amendment. For those who may have forgotten it, here it is:

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.

Yet here, we have Congress making a law that abridges the freedom of speech.

Flag burning, however much I might dislike somebody doing it, is a form of speech. It is a very powerful, very provocative statement, and that statement is: "I hate the United States of America, and I wish it would be destroyed."

Do I agree with them? Hell, no. Do I like them saying this? Hell, no.

The reason that we dislike the act of burning the flag is not because the act itself is heavily dangerous. We are not attempting to ban the burning of any piece of cloth, but instead a piece of cloth with certain markings upon it. People aren't trying to make a case for it because flag burning is dangerous, or because it emits toxic fumes.

The reason they dislike the act is because of what it means. They dislike the message that is being spoken. And they wish to deprive anyone within our borders of the right to send that message. In short, they are asking the government to make the expression of a message that they do not like a crime.

And that is precisely what censorship is. We don't need Freedom of Speech to protect popular ideas. Nobody is trying to ban Mickey Mouse (All right, somebody, somewhere probably is, but it certainly isn't the majority opinion).

Tolerance
Freedom of Speech means that we must tolerate precisely those ideas which we dislike, which offend our values, our culture, our ideas, and our beliefs.

Does the principle of tolerance mean you have to accept those ideas? No.

Does the principle of tolerance mean you have to like those ideas? No.

Does the principle of tolerance mean you have to stay quiet when those ideas are expressed? Definitely not!

Does the principle of tolerance mean that those ideas are accepted while other ideas are suppressed? Again, no.

Tolerance simply means that you do not use acts of force against those you disagree with. I don't like people burning the flag. It makes me angry on a deep, fundamental level. I'll say it here -- any American citizen who torches the flag is a hypocrite and a whiny maggot looking for attention, and has no concept of what is really at stake. And Freedom of Speech gives me the right to express that opinion.

But if I want my right to express my opinion to be protected, then I must grant others that same right. Even if I disagree with them. Even if I consider them the biggest flaming moron ever to have lived on the earth. Even if I consider their ideas dangerous.

Ideas need to be fought with ideas, not with guns. And since every government action is taken at the point of a gun (ultimately), government has no business promoting or punishing ideas. And that includes religious ideas, political ideas, scientific ideas, and social ideas. It has no business declaring certain speech to be off-limits. It can restrict the venue of said speech in some circumstances, potentially; it can restrict speech that is not an expression of an idea but instead nothing more than an incitement to riot (shouting 'Fire' in a crowded theater).

But the Government has no business telling people what ideas they can and cannot express and, so long as no harm is done to others, telling people how and where they can and cannot express them. The Founding Fathers felt this was an important enough idea that they wrote it into the First Amendment. They recognized that ideas are where change begins. They just finished a bloody war with England over ideas -- specifically, the idea of who a man belongs to. The ideas upon which this country was based were actually illegal to express, because those who held power in England disliked them and feared what they represented. They recognized that the suppression of ideas that the majority disagreed with would suppress not only bad ideas that had no merit -- but also good ideas that needed to be heard and considered.

In essence, they created a free market in thoughts. They distinguished between thoughts and actions, and declared that there would be no restrictions upon the former. If you hate a particular candidate for office, you can express that opinion all you wish. If you attempt to translate it into direct action -- for example, shooting the candidate -- that is bad and will be considered attempted murder. But the opinion itself, and the expression of it, was considered to be protected.

What does this mean? It means that the KKK and the NAACP both have the right to their point of view, and the right to express it peacefully. It means that the NRA and the advocates of gun control both have the rights to talk about the pros and cons of their position, and neither side has the right to try to force their opponents to shut up. It means that pro-life and pro-choice both have the right to express their views.

Those with the wisdom to see past the immediate issues will recognize that as soon as government gives into popular demand to censor things that the majority, today, disagree with -- that tomorrow, a new majority may be in power, and use that precedent to censor things that today's majority hold sacred. Once the principle is compromised it becomes worthless, and creates nothing more than mob rule in the realm of ideas.

And that benefits no one -- except those who would use that power for their own benefit.