Defacing the American Flag

[surferarmo]

Well I guess the whole point is that if I touced a Brazilian flag on my campus and threw it on the floor, I can gauruntee a riot would start and I would arrested. How come our flag is not defended with such merit.

Ok, I don't know much about politics, but this here doesn't make sense to me.

Wouldn't it be more rational to get worked up if the US flag was defamed as opposed to the flag of a foreign nation?

Tell me if I misunderstood you.

No flames. I will explain. I believe that flying the American flag is a form of expression. If I want to fly it, I should be able to and people should respect that.

Now we can both agree that burning a flag, is in itself, a form of expression.

OK. So the thing is, when police were informed of the crisis-people defacing other peoples flags-the police notified the chancellor. The chancellor said that "the American flag does not mean the same thing to all people. What it means to you (the flag fliers) it might not mean to someone else." The first amendment is geared towards protecting minority point of views. At UCSC, and in California for that matter, my views are the minority. I am not protected.

Now I dont have a problem with people wanting to express hatred of themselves, or their country....that is their opinion. THey have a right to say that, and I have a right to respond. How they respond is by defacing defacing a flag, which is a form of expression. Therefore, they are shutting people up that have pro-america views on campus.

I want the flag to be flown. My point is that it makes no sense for the police to protect one point form of expression, especially the majority form of expression- on my campus it isanti-american sentiment.

So my thing is that I fly a flag which says a lot on my part. It is what I believe in. SOmeone comes and burns it. Lets disregaurd the law for a second. Not only did someone mame my property, the took away my form of expression.

The Chancellor said that "people who do this thing feel strongly and express themselves, and we need to respect it" WHAT ABOUT MY POINT OF VIEW????

Do you understand now? It is just totally contradictory.

It happens on my side too. I know, and I dont endorse it. I appreciate intellectual diversity.

[surferarmo]

The Supreme Court considers burning the American Flag an act which is protected by the First Amendment right to free speech.
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech."
The only way Congress could make such anti-flag-desecration laws pass constitutionally is to amend the very document that protects our rights.
as for those of you who are arguing whether or not flag burning is a form of speech. lets see: hmmm... If it is not a form of speech, then it is just the act of burning a peice of cloth (However the admendment would allow people to burn the flag as the proper way to dispose of an old worn out flag.) This means that sometimes you could burn the flag and sometimes you could not, depending on the intentions of the individual. This means that the actual act of burning the flag is not what is considered wrong but rather the intentions of the individual. Intentions are nothing more than thoughts. Expressing thoughts (ie burning the flag) is called speech (in the terms of the constitution).

Yes Jahannam, burning the flag is a form of expression. I, the Republican even acknowledges that. Flying a flag is ALSO a form of experssion. In burning someones flag, you are not only destroying property and infringing on private property rights, you are also stomping out their form of expression.

Why is flying a flag not protected, but burning one is?

[hyeclass]

1776: January 1 -- The Grand Union flag is displayed on Prospect Hill. It has 13 alternate red and white stripes and the British Union Jack in the upper left-hand corner (the canton).

1776: May -- Betsy Ross reports that she sewed the first American flag.

1777: June 14 -- Continental Congress adopts the following: Resolved: that the flag of the United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation. (stars represent Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island)

1787: Captain Robert Gray carries the flag around the world on his sailing vessel (around the tip of South America, to China, and beyond). He discovered the Columbia river and named it after his boat The Columbia. His discovery was the basis of America's claim to the Oregon Territory.

1795: Flag with 15 stars and 15 stripes (Vermont, Kentucky)

1814: September 14 -- Francis Scott Key writes "The Star-Spangled Banner." It officially becomes the national anthem in 1931.

1818: Flag with 20 stars and 13 stripes (it remains at 13 hereafter) (Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi) Act of April 4, 1818 - provided for 13 stripes and one star for each state, to be added to the flag on the 4th of July following the admission of each new state.

1819: Flag with 21 stars (Illinois)

1820: Flag with 23 stars (Alabama, Maine) first flag on Pikes Peak

1822: Flag with 24 stars (Missouri)

1836: Flag with 25 stars (Arkansas)

1837: Flag with 26 stars (Michigan)

1845: Flag with 27 stars (Florida)

1846: Flag with 28 stars (Texas)

1847: Flag with 29 stars (Iowa)

1848: Flag with 30 stars (Wisconsin)

1851: Flag with 31 stars (California)

1858: Flag with 32 stars (Minnesota)

1859: Flag with 33 stars (Oregon)

1861: Flag with 34 stars; (Kansas) first Confederate Flag (Stars and Bars) adopted in Montgomery, Alabama

1863: Flag with 35 stars (West Virginia)

1865: Flag with 36 stars (Nevada)

1867: Flag with 37 stars (Nebraska)

1869: First flag on a postage stamp

1877: Flag with 38 stars (Colorado)

1890: Flag with 43 stars (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho)

1891: Flag with 44 stars (Wyoming)

1892: "Pledge of Allegiance" first published in a magazine called "The Youth's Companion." Authorship was claimed for James B. Upham and Francis Bellamy. In 1939 the United States Flag Association ruled that Bellamy was the author of the original pledge. The words, "under God" were added on June 14, 1954. In pledging allegiance to the flag, stand with the right hand over the heart or at attention. Men remove their headdress. Persons in uniform give the military salute. All pledge together: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1896: Flag with 45 stars (Utah)

1908: Flag with 46 stars (Oklahoma)

1909: Robert Peary places the flag his wife sewed atop the North Pole. He left pieces of another flag along the way.

1912: Flag with 48 stars (New Mexico, Arizona) Executive Order of President Taft dated June 24, 1912 - established proportions of the flag and provided for arrangement of the stars in six horizontal rows of eight each, a single point of each star to be upward.

1931: Congress officially recognizes `The Star-Spangled Banner' as the national anthem of the United States . Its stirring words were written by Francis Scott Key.

1945: The flag that flew over Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, is flown over the White House on August 14, when the Japanese accepted surrender terms.

1949: August 3 -- Truman signs bill requesting the President call for Flag Day (June 14) observance each year by proclamation.

1959: Flag with 49 stars (Alaska) Executive Order of President Eisenhower dated January 3, 1959 - provided for the arrangement of the stars in seven rows of seven stars each, staggered horizontally and vertically. Executive Order of President Eisenhower dated August 21, 1959 - provided for the arrangement of the stars in nine rows of stars staggered horizon tally and eleven rows of stars staggered vertically.

1960: Flag with 50 stars (Hawaii)

1963: Flag placed on top of Mount Everest by Barry Bishop.

1969: July 20 -- The American flag is placed on the moon by Neil Armstrong.

1995: December 12 -- The Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment is narrowly defeated in the Senate. The Amendment to the Constitution would make burning the flag a PUNISHABLE CRIME.

[sSsflamesSs]

Well I guess the whole point is that if I touced a Brazilian flag on my campus and threw it on the floor, I can gauruntee a riot would start and I would arrested. How come our flag is not defended with such merit.

Ok, I don't know much about politics, but this here doesn't make sense to me.

Wouldn't it be more rational to get worked up if the US flag was defamed as opposed to the flag of a foreign nation?

Tell me if I misunderstood you.

No flames. I will explain. I believe that flying the American flag is a form of expression. If I want to fly it, I should be able to and people should respect that.

Now we can both agree that burning a flag, is in itself, a form of expression.

OK. So the thing is, when police were informed of the crisis-people defacing other peoples flags-the police notified the chancellor. The chancellor said that "the American flag does not mean the same thing to all people. What it means to you (the flag fliers) it might not mean to someone else." The first amendment is geared towards protecting minority point of views. At UCSC, and in California for that matter, my views are the minority. I am not protected.

Now I dont have a problem with people wanting to express hatred of themselves, or their country....that is their opinion. THey have a right to say that, and I have a right to respond. How they respond is by defacing defacing a flag, which is a form of expression. Therefore, they are shutting people up that have pro-america views on campus.

I want the flag to be flown. My point is that it makes no sense for the police to protect one point form of expression, especially the majority form of expression- on my campus it isanti-american sentiment.

So my thing is that I fly a flag which says a lot on my part. It is what I believe in. SOmeone comes and burns it. Lets disregaurd the law for a second. Not only did someone mame my property, the took away my form of expression.

The Chancellor said that "people who do this thing feel strongly and express themselves, and we need to respect it" WHAT ABOUT MY POINT OF VIEW????

Do you understand now? It is just totally contradictory.

It happens on my side too. I know, and I dont endorse it. I appreciate intellectual diversity.

Surferarmo, all I got out of that is that (if you're right about the legal matter, and I'll take your word for it) your school and CA have messed up views about the first amendment. Why in the world would they want to promote flag burning over flag waving? You are right - they should not favor one form of expression over the other.

However, you completely failed to answer my question. I understand what you're saying, but that was not what I was asking.

How is desecrating a foreign flag worse than desecrating the US flag, ON US SOIL???

Why is flying a flag not protected, but burning one is?

...and this you addressed to Jahannam, but it concerned me also.

You yourself told me that burning the flag is illegal, so how can it be protected?

[sSsflamesSs]

If you decided to live in this nation...you should not be discracing its symbols...then youre just discracing yourself...BTW, same goes for the eagle thing...

That's my point. If you choose to live here, then have respect for it.

I still don't understand why surferarmo said he would get arrested if he defamed a foreign nation's flag on US soil.

So you're saying to have respect for something illusory?

The nations, boundaries and its symbols are all illusory and only exist with faith that it means something.

I guess I'm not a faithful person.

If you are so brave, why don't you just go around doing as you please?

The thing is, you are not in power. And until you overtake the ones that are, you are no more wise than the rest of us. We are limited by the same system.

Fact is, nations DO exist. They are a form of organization, whether you like to admit it or not. Now I must agree that the system holds us back and cuts down on the so called concept of 'freedom'. Certain people are in power, and it is not in their best interests to give up that power to you or anyone else. This is why they keep all citizens in a state of fear, as you mentioned in the other thread, so that they can go about doing what powerful people do - what they please.

Your missing the essence of my argument. My whole point was that nations, naming them, naming boundaries and naming laws against the citizenry are all outward manifestations, not intrinsically natural, but rather artificial in that we have created and given meaning to these things.

If we're going to be like this, then let's go back to the cavemen era. No boundaries, no cars, no laws, no nothing. True, nations are man-made, but that doesn't mean that they do not exist. They provide organization, instead of letting entropy take its course.

Nations are like a thick band of wires. It's ridiculously easy to bend one wire, but when you put together a whole band of them, it's not so easy to bend them anymore. Therefore, nations provide us with security. Yea, they take away some of our rights, but I already covered that in my previous post.

In my example of the state getting away with genocides and mass murder, yet punishing an individual for either conspiring against the state or killing someone else, why shouldn't he be allowed to it, and the State is allowed to? If the State is what you call organization and something "higher and more nobler" then why do they rely on such inhuman acts in order to survive?

Where in my posts do you see the phrase "higher and more nobler"? I am not defending the ethics of nations, merely what they provide for us citizens, and that is a base, a foundation. Without it, we would all crumble down and start killing each other. It's human nature. Ever read the book Lord of the Flies? I read it in the 8th grade, but it truly embraces the different aspects of human behavior when authority is lacking.

The reason that the state would punish the individual and not itself for similar crimes is that when the individual commits it, it is inside the state, affecting the state. E.g. The US could care less if an American killed another human in Mexico. They would not enforce their laws. However, when the nation itself commits those same inhuman acts - genocides and mass murders - it believes that it is in its best interests to do so. Now I am NOT justifying genocides, oh hell no, but the state, when it commits them, believes that it is necessary to increase its power.

Nations are not real. People use man made language to define and create mythical boundaries to reinforce this idea with the whim of a gun. A nation just like freedom or equality is an idea. Like I said, the continental landmass known as the Americas was simply a piece of land we just gave a name to. It was a piece of land for millenia and as far back as it existed before we came and named it. Other minor examples can be brought up which show how we define the past by definitions from the present using methods that would get any high school student an F, because logically you cannot compare the passed past with the context of today. In doing so, the men behind the curtains have created a past where there was none.

...and you were a piece of meat before someone came along and provided you with a first name (name) and a last name (boundary). News flash: we are living in the present, and always will be. There is no way that we can time travel, so why does it matter what the continents were named or were not named in the past? Truth is, maps and boundaries will change, cultures will change, heck, the weather will change, but that's all out of our hands and in the hands of time, which never stops for anyone. One thing is for sure - humans need civilization to differ from apes, and to survive (we're all much too power hungry and will attack each other at the first chance when laws are not there to stop us). The thing we call conscience and morals all have to do with our upbringing. They are not part of our instincts, hence they are unnatural and learned. The animal in us needs an authority figure to punish us when we do wrong, and that authority figure is the state.

To suggest that anarchism is a form of disorganization is unfounded and reflects a lack of knowledge about the basic tenets of it. I'm not trying to proclaim anarchist thought here, merely trying to give an equal weight of attention to something alternative from the established view. Anarchism is actually the natural order and organization of things as opposed to the artificial order imposed from above in this system. My only contention with the form of nation states is that their artificiality is essentially what eventually causes its decay.

It is possible that I do not have as much knowledge about what anarchy is as you do, and I regret that. I'm not exactly what you would call a bookworm (again, I'm not proud of that, but that's how it is). But from what I do know, anarchy is a state of disorder and lawlessness. There is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you please. I have already made it clear that human nature cannot handle that. The state provides us with laws and boundaries of what we can and cannot do, some more extreme than others. Civilization needs this parent figure to stay civilized.

The state does decrease our freedom, but I have already stated why. Sometimes it does this more than it should, but that's what happens when power is in someone's hands. We can either do as we please, in the end killing each other, or we can give up some of our rights in order to survive chaos.

[Anonymouse]

Please see my response in the thread I created. I won't waste a post and diskspace here.

I essentially answer the points you raised.

[surferarmo]

Well I guess the whole point is that if I touced a Brazilian flag on my campus and threw it on the floor, I can gauruntee a riot would start and I would arrested. How come our flag is not defended with such merit.

Ok, I don't know much about politics, but this here doesn't make sense to me.

Wouldn't it be more rational to get worked up if the US flag was defamed as opposed to the flag of a foreign nation?

Tell me if I misunderstood you.

No flames. I will explain. I believe that flying the American flag is a form of expression. If I want to fly it, I should be able to and people should respect that.

Now we can both agree that burning a flag, is in itself, a form of expression.

OK. So the thing is, when police were informed of the crisis-people defacing other peoples flags-the police notified the chancellor. The chancellor said that "the American flag does not mean the same thing to all people. What it means to you (the flag fliers) it might not mean to someone else." The first amendment is geared towards protecting minority point of views. At UCSC, and in California for that matter, my views are the minority. I am not protected.

Now I dont have a problem with people wanting to express hatred of themselves, or their country....that is their opinion. THey have a right to say that, and I have a right to respond. How they respond is by defacing defacing a flag, which is a form of expression. Therefore, they are shutting people up that have pro-america views on campus.

I want the flag to be flown. My point is that it makes no sense for the police to protect one point form of expression, especially the majority form of expression- on my campus it isanti-american sentiment.

So my thing is that I fly a flag which says a lot on my part. It is what I believe in. SOmeone comes and burns it. Lets disregaurd the law for a second. Not only did someone mame my property, the took away my form of expression.

The Chancellor said that "people who do this thing feel strongly and express themselves, and we need to respect it" WHAT ABOUT MY POINT OF VIEW????

Do you understand now? It is just totally contradictory.

It happens on my side too. I know, and I dont endorse it. I appreciate intellectual diversity.

Surferarmo, all I got out of that is that (if you're right about the legal matter, and I'll take your word for it) your school and CA have messed up views about the first amendment. Why in the world would they want to promote flag burning over flag waving? You are right - they should not favor one form of expression over the other.

However, you completely failed to answer my question. I understand what you're saying, but that was not what I was asking.

How is desecrating a foreign flag worse than desecrating the US flag, ON US SOIL???

Why is flying a flag not protected, but burning one is?

...and this you addressed to Jahannam, but it concerned me also.

You yourself told me that burning the flag is illegal, so how can it be protected?

Exactly my point. Hypocrytical isnt it? I am saying that the liberals at UCSC would kill me and call me a racist if I burned the flag of Nigeria or Afgahnastan. They would call that racism, and suppressing other cultures. But burning an American flag is OK? I dont get it either. That is the same question that I have.

It is all subjective. On my campus, and this is no joke, people have seminars to speak of the atrocities committed by the white male. xxxx, I never had slaves, I never suppressed anyone. My politics proffessor and my lesbian writing proffessor constantly spoke of the white male in blunt terms, using the word pigs. Now it is OK for lesbians and feminists to commit hate speech on white males, it is OK and protected for African Americans to commit hate speech against white males. If I walked said anything about xxxs, or if I said "nigger" guess what would happen.

[Shangh_Hye]

If you decided to live in this nation...you should not be discracing its symbols...then youre just discracing yourself...BTW, same goes for the eagle thing...

That's my point. If you choose to live here, then have respect for it.

I still don't understand why surferarmo said he would get arrested if he defamed a foreign nation's flag on US soil.

So you're saying to have respect for something illusory?

The nations, boundaries and its symbols are all illusory and only exist with faith that it means something.

I guess I'm not a faithful person.

Thats ridiculous...since when are Nations illusory?... If someone asks you where you live what do you tell them?...Planet Earth? Nations are not religion to have a faith in pal...they exist and you are bound by their boundaries whether you choose to belive or not...its this kind of loose-ended thinking that gets people into trouble...

It's not up to me to believe it or not, it's up to you.

You believe they exist because you have been condition to think that way. Where is the boundary which you speak of? There is no natural occurence that created a line that said "here is the boundary". Studying the history of America only shows how elastic and pliable "nations" are and "boundaries" always change. The Pledge of Allegiance, the Constitution, our passports, are all artificial creations trying to set definitions and create a context for us to see that "hey this is what it means to be in a nation".

If the self appointed government, ( which in reality is really self appointed not elected and the idea of nations is precisely counter to allowing individual self management ) were to say fall, what value would your passport or your dollar or the boundaries have? The mythical boundaries do not prevent from immigrants coming or going through. The mighty American dollor purely exists on the concept of faith. You have faith that it is worth something because of government decree. The State, our government, has said that this money is worth something. In reality it's just paper and nothing more.

That is the way it is, I cannot change it. But you will find that some people are like Agent Mulder from the X-Files, they like to believe.

Why dont you just drive up to the Canadian or Mexican border and "belive" there is no national boundary and drive right through...we'll just see what happens...Hey everybody!...lets just not "belive" in stuff and they will just disappear...oh and I dont suggest backing up your opinions with tv shows...this is just foolish...how did we get off the flag subject...

[jahannam]

If you decided to live in this nation...you should not be discracing its symbols...then youre just discracing yourself...BTW, same goes for the eagle thing...

That's my point. If you choose to live here, then have respect for it.

I still don't understand why surferarmo said he would get arrested if he defamed a foreign nation's flag on US soil.

So you're saying to have respect for something illusory?

The nations, boundaries and its symbols are all illusory and only exist with faith that it means something.

I guess I'm not a faithful person.

Thats ridiculous...since when are Nations illusory?... If someone asks you where you live what do you tell them?...Planet Earth? Nations are not religion to have a faith in pal...they exist and you are bound by their boundaries whether you choose to belive or not...its this kind of loose-ended thinking that gets people into trouble...

I might be straying a bit.. but can you guys clarify what you mean when you say nation? I think shang and flames are a kinda off...
cuz nation is the group of peopleas opposed to the country or the actual geographic area...
so shanghye... when someone asks you about where you live...they're not asking about nations... they're asking you about the place...

[surferarmo]

If you decided to live in this nation...you should not be discracing its symbols...then youre just discracing yourself...BTW, same goes for the eagle thing...

That's my point. If you choose to live here, then have respect for it.

I still don't understand why surferarmo said he would get arrested if he defamed a foreign nation's flag on US soil.

So you're saying to have respect for something illusory?

The nations, boundaries and its symbols are all illusory and only exist with faith that it means something.

I guess I'm not a faithful person.

Thats ridiculous...since when are Nations illusory?... If someone asks you where you live what do you tell them?...Planet Earth? Nations are not religion to have a faith in pal...they exist and you are bound by their boundaries whether you choose to belive or not...its this kind of loose-ended thinking that gets people into trouble...

I might be straying a bit.. but can you guys clarify what you mean when you say nation? I think shang and flames are a kinda off...
cuz nation is the group of peopleas opposed to the country or the actual geographic area...
so shanghye... when someone asks you about where you live...they're not asking about nations... they're asking you about the place...

Who cares.. There is a nation thread....discuss it there.