We previously discussed the case of Bruyton Mellott who was arrested after posting online pictures of himself burning an American flag has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the state’s flag desecration law declared unconstitutional. The 22-year-old the Wal-Mart employee was charged with flag desecration despite two Supreme Court cases clearly saying that such an act is constitutionally protected. After various experts (including myself) said that the arrest was unconstitutional, the charges were dropped, but Mellott is now suing. I personally find Mellott’s actions to be highly offensive and disturbing. I have never understood the burning of the flag which represents our collective rights, including free speech. Unfortunately, important free speech cases are often triggered by the most reprehensible forms of speech or most reprehensible individuals. In the end, the lawsuit may force legislators to confront the fact that they have continued a facially unconstitutional law on their books because they fear the political backlash if they comply with long-standing Supreme Court precedent.
Mellott, who is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois and his complaint names several police officers. Urbana police have said they arrested Mellott to protect him from possible backlash from the online posts. He is seeking unspecified damages.
Supreme Court has stated clearly that flag burning is protected under the first amendment in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and U.S. v. Eichman (1990).
Police say that they responded to demands from citizens for an arrest – hardly a convincing defense to say that we were merely trying to appease the public with an unconstitutional arrest. What is equally bizarre is that he was charged with disorderly conduct as well as being the victim of disorderly conduct. His conduct was deemed as “causing others to be put at risk of harm.” That is facially ridiculous. Just as the act is constitutionally protected, you cannot charge some for the response of others to a constitutionally protected act. It is like arresting a journalist for the response of a reader to an article.
In an interview, the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia explained why flag burning is protected speech:
“If I were king, I would not allow people to go around burning the American flag. However, we have a First Amendment, which says that the right of free speech shall not be abridged — and it is addressed in particular to speech critical of the government,” Scalia said. “That was the main kind of speech that tyrants would seek to suppress.”
It is time for the legislature in Illinois to take as principled a stand and repeal this unconstitutional law. We can then continue as a society to denounce offensive acts like Mellott’s flag burning as a desecration of not only the flag but the rights that it represents.
Here is the complaint: Mellott Lawsuit
Would burning a rainbow flag @ a Gay Pride parade be protected speech, or would the protected class of gay people make it a hate crime?
Depends on whose ox is being gored — obviously.
Clearly protected speech.
Thanks, Mespo and Mike. Firstly, it’s good having you guys back here. Regarding the rainbow flag. I can see burning a rainbow flag soon taking on the status of cross burning. As you know, in certain circumstances, when used to intimidate, cross burning is illegal. I agree it should be. I don’t think burning any flag should be illegal. I am a Connecticut Yankee born and bred, but being a history lover I have been troubled by the banning of the Confederate flag.
Nick – burning a rainbow flag at a Gay Pride Parade would be stupid. You would just get beat up by a bunch of dykes on bikes.
Excellent. One of my best friends in life used to say I want to grow up to be a male lesbian. Most would stop and say, “Wait a minute…are you saying what I think your saying?” His answer ‘don’t bother me with thinking I just want to get laid.’ So what do you think it means? First off the mark he had a great sense of humor and second he was thoroughly literate.
His real goal was to either be a Tenured Congressional. His wife was an investment counselor and his sister-in-law an attorney. They got the idea that talking while sleeping was not a crime. Part Two was acting on the information obtained while sleeping was likewise no crime. To prove it they would tape record the episodes.
Now you know why Congressionals always retire rich – except for Sanders. Question is how much is his wife worth? No answer to that. No spouse may be forced to testify for or against the other spouse.
When asked how he (or she) explained their string of correct picks he only could say, “If I knew that I could write a book and make money a lot faster -or my name would be Hillary Tyson Clinton.”.
As far as this whole flag burning thing goes just remember the pledge has a line about ‘liberty and organge juice for all.’ But it’s not in the Constitution. Neither is the notion of being ‘involuntarily forced’ t0 take an oath of allegiance.’ but the draft law is still on the books and operating. Why bring that up? Drafting snowfakes before they melt has a certain cache, a certain Je ne sais quoi and is more quotable than “I dont know What?”
As you’ve no doubt noticed, the SCOTUS keeps two sets of books: One is for the run of the mill case where stare decisis usually rules the day. The other is for what I call the headliner case. Those are ones that catch the public’s eye and eventually shape public discourse. Same sex marriage is a recent example. Bush v. Gore is another. There you get the politicized opinions and usually split 5-4 along ideological lines. Prior rulings never rule the day there. Oh, they pay lip service to precedent but as you know any good lawyer can distinguish any case from another even it’s not really that different. SCOTUS is political, Congress is political, hell, as Aristotle said “man is a political animal.” Name the last time anyone in power ruled against their own interests or biases. The next time that happens will be the first time.
Didn’t you post much the same far above, thinking it was clever with your NTTAWWT suffix of thought?
Pretty sure you did.
Out of your league, Nick. Take your balls and go home, eh?
Jose? Can you sort of re-connect that to the conversation.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/FAKENEWS?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
It also depends on who owned the flag which was burned. There was an article on the blog a while back where some guy burned a flag owned by the town.
Let me get this straight in my centrist moderate objectivist mind. Law enforcement was afraid of backlash if they complied with a law that had been up held all the way to the Supreme Court. How many faulty premises is that conclusion? What brought them to such a point of stupidity? I’m trying to put myself in the shoes and thought process of civilians. Whoops most don’t have thought processes. So let’s look at the reverse. Lawmakers and government employees in general and the President specifically shit and piss on their oath of office which specifies ‘uphold the ‘Constitution.’ They do everything but ignore it to circumvent it to figuratively burn it. Why? They are afraid of backlash. Hey Dumb Ass what do you call November 8th?
Now who is going to pay for the open and shut results of the lawsuit? The working class citizens who kicked the politicians asses out on Nov 8th followed by those unloyal and in a state of revolution against the Constitution?” Naaaahhhhh it will be the working class citizens and by the way that includes everyone who works from CEO to Janitor. But excludes Union Leaders, politicians etc.
When the answer is wrong check premises and remember not only do two wrongs make a right but given three choices – for, against, compromise – you will assuredly end up with your two wrongs. and only one right answer. So why are you choosing to do the wrong thing?
Because it ‘feels’ like the best thing to do for the moment? Personally I hooipe the people of that state kick the crap out of the everyone involved with the stupidity involved not to mention realize the people who caused it are not fit to serve the citizens, the nation nor the Constitution.
Jill, I very much appreciate your thoughtful and nuanced treatment of this issue. The burning of the flag can be a powerful statement against the desecration of the values which it is intended to symbolize. Statutes that criminalize flag burning are the secular equivalents to anti-blasphemy laws, and are objectionable for the same reasons.
Thanks Mike. What you wrote is my feeling as well.
We’ve come to such a bad place in this nation. It’s a place I had never thought I would see in my lifetime.
“Statutes that criminalize flag burning are the secuar equivalent of anti-blasphemy laws, and are objectionable for the same reason”.
Mike, I think the bulk of the comments here recognize that there is a First Amendment right to burn a flag or to commit blasphemy.
And whether the “free speech” is burning flags, or burning Korans, those activities are legally protected.
Given that the intent and effect of those behavors are to incite and offend, I’d say that they are both dumb-ass, but legal, activities.
Glad you brought up anti-blasphemy laws.
Karen.
I respect very much what you wrote and I want to ask a sincere question of you.
Why is the bravest thing a person can do is go to war? If you look at civilian protesters, people in the civil rights movement for example, they risked their lives for justice. Anti war demonstrators have risked their lives, getting beaten, tortured and even killed for their belief that peace is a better goal than war. For their hope that no one should have to risk their lives in wars which are all too often lies of the powerful against the powerless.
We also know that not all soldiers are good. Our soldiers have committed war crimes. Other soldiers have tried hard to do the right thing during battle. Some have failed, but they tried. Others didn’t care about the crimes they committed. Others did not commit crimes. Many soldiers have suffered. I care about those women and men. I would rather they had never been put in harm’s way by a lying govt. whose only concern was money, oil and power.
The flag is a symbol. It should be a symbol of the best our nation should stand for: justice, compassion, freedom, concern for the common welfare and most specifically the upholding of our Constitution. Still, the flag is a symbol. It is not those things.
When the govt. is undermining everything the flag is a symbol of, I feel strongly that burning the flag is a way of saying that one sees what the govt. is doing to the Constitution, to civilians, to soldiers, to the earth and to other people around the world and one objects to this govt’s wrongdoing. Namely, this govt. is turning the ideals of our nation on its head and committing crimes against the Constitution and this living planet and most of the people on it. Burning the flag is showing belief not in the symbol but in the living reality of justice. It is a statement saying, I do not accept this injustice. I do not accept this cruelty and I do not consent to the destruction of my nation.
If you feel inclined, I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Jill
Jill – protesters in North Korea, China (Tieneman Square), Iran, and Saudi Arabia are quite brave. It is true that some soldiers, like any human beings, commit crimes. It is true that sometimes our government errs gravely, and that harsh criticism of that government is sometimes warranted. The flag is not our government; it is our country. Burning the flag may mean to some that we are not living up to what it represents. But that’s like showing someone a photo of their dead mother, burning it, and claiming that you are trying to say that you are not living up to her values. It’s hard to get a positive, motivational message out of flag burning, along the lines of “we should do better.”
This young man was not risking his life, limb, or freedom (or should not have risked his freedom), in making his protest. Here in the US, if the police beat you for saying something they don’t like, they get sued, and arrested and the victim is feted and invited to the White House. Sometimes the happens even when the police are justified.
Protesters here are not in the same plane of bravery as protesters in tyrannical countries where criticism of the government is a capital crime.
I believe there are myriad ways in which to harshly condemn any action of the government with which you disagree that does not involve burning of the flag. One of the inherent goals in communication is to transmit your message in a manner in which the recipient hears and understands. That’s why screaming in an argument is useless. You’ll never get your point across, and your opponent will never say, you make a great point. However, I support the First Amendment that protects such desecration. I just do not agree with the behavior.
Thanks Karen.
We won’t agree on this but I know we agree that what is happening to our nation right now is very, very wrong.
Thanks, Jill.
Do you feel like Mike A that because a national symbol is easily reproduced it can be defiled but if it’s hard to produce it can’t be defiled? I find that a fascinating position.
Jill,
On the question of bravery,
there is the type of bravery exhibited by Martin Luther King or Medgar Evers.
There is the type of bravery exhibited by Pat Tillman.
There is an obnoxious puke getting his 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a payday, from burning a flag.
Under the law, that activity is protected free speech.
Just as I’m free to call the subject of this column an obnoxious weasel.
I’m not saying that “the bravest thing a person can do is to go to war”, which is why I referenced MLK and Medgar Evers as well as Pat Tillman.
I don’t think Karen S. was saying that either.
I am saying that the guy burning the flag doesn’t deserve any special recognition for bravery or commitment, with the law and the ACLU behind him.
I’m not saying“the bravest thing a person can do is to go to war”,
*************
Why not? It’s a awfully pale shade of bravery until you are facing a trained, well-equipped enemy hell-bent on killing you because you believe in something he doesn’t.
Mespo….
My point was that there was a lot of bravery and commitment exhibited by people like MLK and Medgar Evers.
They KNEW they had targets on their backs, faced the risks, paid the price.
I think that kind of bravery is on a par with the type bravery exhibited by a Pat Tillman.
And pales in comparison by orders of magnitude to those guys on Omaha Beach or Hacksaw Ridge or Château-Thierry or Gettysburg etc.
tn,
I didn’t see that JT’s post was saying he was either brave or a coward. (People were saying he was a coward on the blog.)
What he deserves is the right to burn the flag. He should not have been arrested. Those rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and he does merit representation for having his rights abused by the state. Anyone, no matter whether they are good or bad, deserves the same.
I think most people here agree with that, although, not everyone.
Of course, he’s a coward because somebody who really wants change doesn’t goad the authorities and whine about it, they work. A trip to his legislator would have worked just as well but you can’t wear a flower crown there. He’s just hiding behind the constitution to get some underserved attention. He’ll win the case and lose our respect. Bad deal there, Jack
The burning of the flag is Free Speech. The arrest was not warranted, and the state law should be thrown out.
That said, I have the following observations:
1) It saddens me that we are able to protect the native oak of CA, where merely trimming off a dead branch to keep it from smashing through your roof will land you in trouble, but we are not able to protect the flag. I acknowledge that desecrating the flag is protected speech, and we need to be able to criticize our government, but I do not like it. This is one of those instances where protecting free speech is hard, though necessary. The answer should be good speech to counter the bad. Can this man really have not found another interest creating device for his statement than the flag?
2) This young man in the photo seems to be trying to look brave. He’s got flowers in his hair, what looks like gypsy hoop earrings, a flowery T-shirt, and he’s holding a burning flag. Look at me. I’m standing up and making a brave statement. I am firmly convinced that if you dumped him on a battle field and his Converse touched sand, he’d be cringing in a ball begging the grunts to protect him. He is using a symbol that reflects the real bravery of our military, men and women who are far braver than me. I know they are braver than me, and have put blood in the game that I have never spilled, and felt grief over lost friends that I have never felt, not from a battle. So I would never presume to desecrate the symbol for which they fought. I would never pretend to be brave while burning that symbol. When the s%&*&t hits the fan, our military are the ones who stick. They do not run. Even when they’re scared and their adrenaline is through the nose, they follow orders. It’s offensive to me that this man is striking a “brave” pose while demeaning a symbol of real, tested bravery.
3)Mespo – thank you for relaying Justice Stevens’ earlier comments on the flag. I am curious if there is a way to protect the flag without infringing upon Free Speech. I am not a legal expert, and am torn on the issue. I do not want to start a slippery slope in which multiple symbols could be protected and rights chipped away. But the desecration of the flag hurts.
It hurts because it’s a unique symbol and worthy of protection from unnecessary defilement.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
It was a 5-4 decision holding that flag burning as an act was constitutionally protected expressive free speech. Here’s hoping for a reversal. This is the reasoning borrowed from Justice Stevens in dissent in another flag case Texas v. Johnson:
“A country’s flag is a symbol of more than “nationhood and national unity.” Ante at 407, 410, 413, and n. 9, 417, 420. It also signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas. The fleurs-de-lis and the tricolor both symbolized “nationhood and national unity,” but they had vastly different meanings. The message conveyed by some flags — the swastika, for example — may survive long after it has outlived its usefulness as a symbol of regimented unity in a particular nation. [p437]
So it is with the American flag. It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. It is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance, and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival.
The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. Even so, I have no doubt that the interest in preserving that value for the future is both significant and legitimate. Conceivably, that value will be enhanced by the Court’s conclusion that our national commitment to free expression is so strong that even the United States, as ultimate guarantor of that freedom, is without power to prohibit the desecration of its unique symbol. But I am unpersuaded. The creation of a federal right to post bulletin boards and graffiti on the Washington Monument might enlarge the market for free expression, but at a cost I would not pay. Similarly, in my considered judgment, sanctioning the public desecration of the flag will tarnish its value — both for those who cherish the ideas for which it waves and for those who desire to don the robes of martyrdom by burning it. That tarnish is not justified by the trivial burden on free expression occasioned by requiring that an available, alternative mode of expression — including uttering words critical of the flag, see Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969) — be employed.”
(…)
The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for — and our history demonstrates that they are — it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.
A few thoughts:
The point is that the right of free speech may not be circumscribed by the cultural preferences of the majority, but that is precisely what occurred in this instance. The police were wrong, the city will lose and the taxpayers footing the bill for this foolishness will ignorantly babble on about the unfairness of it all.
Well, that depends, Mike. What if I wanted to plaster the Washington Monument with placards arguing this or that? Is that protected free speech? There are limits to rights and cultural preferences do enter the criteria for limiting certain rights.
I agree that cultural preferences routinely inform legislative judgments. However, the Supreme Court has overruled the legislative judgment regarding flag burning and Texas v. Johnson has not been reversed. The analogy to the Washington Monument is flawed. We do not annually reproduce millions of Washington Monuments and it is part of the national park system. No one would argue that I may lawfully start a forest fire in Yellowstone to protest the government’s policies on lumbering.
Mike A:
Cultural preferences also inform SCOTUS decisions, Griswold being just one of many. The Court could have protected the flag as an exception like we protect the myriad of national monuments from placarding based on cultural preferences. They didn’t but it was only a 5-4 decision and the composition is likely to change. We’ll see what happens.
You may be right, mespo, but should that day arrive, it will mean that we have made of our government a national religion, with the flag as its altar cloth and our representatives as its priests.
That’s a tad hyperbolic, Mike A. Austria, Finland, Germany, India, Ireland, Portugal and Sweden are some of the Western countries who impose criminal or civil sanctions for defiling their national flag. Still others punish desecration of another country’s flag. Have they, too, made their government a “national religion”? Are they somehow less free? The flag is different as most will acknowledge and many countries likewise acknowledge that seemingly obvious fact. We had 5 people out of 9 say differently twenty-five years ago. That might change.
Mandating respect for the flag might indeed be the best way to get people to reassess what it actually does stand for.
does-> didI’m not sure coerced patriotism works either. However, protecting standards is the work of every society.
“Well, that depends, Mike. What if I wanted to plaster the Washington Monument with placards arguing this or that? Is that protected free speech? There are limits to rights and cultural preferences do enter the criteria for limiting certain rights.”
Red-herring alert. Burning in one’s yard a US flag one buys at the five and dime for personal use is not the same as destroying public property such as a flag on a pole at the post office. Defacing or permanently affixing placards to a national monument is.
The notion that petty arson is ‘speech’ is a fantasy of the appellate judiciary and the law professoriate. If you’d torched Mr. Injustice Brennan’s chambers, I doubt he’d have been willing to chalk it up to an exercise of free speech. .
The only fantasy here is your suggestion that burning a flag is “petty arson.” The burning of a flag which belongs to me under circumstances that do not create a risk of injury or damage to the person or property of another is not arson. The balance of your comment is silly.
No, it’s only ‘silly’ to your addled head. Burning a flag is neither speech nor publication. It does not implicate reason in any way. That there are things you call ‘speech-acts’ is a vague, half-baked notion that can justify about anything, including torching Mr. Injustice Brennan’s chambers. The point of the opinion in 1989 was to assert a franchise on the part of the judiciary to set the boundary conditions of ‘speech’ at an arbitrary point of their choosing. That’s not ‘silly. It’s another repulsive power grab by a rotten clerisy.
I’ve long had a problem with conflating actions with free speech. So-called “expressive free speech” is awfully nebulous running the gamut from dance to flag burning. Here’s crackpot opinion from a German regional court saying bombing a synagogue is an act of showing displeasure with Israel i.e. expressive free speech.
https://israelnewsonline.org/german-court-calls-synagogue-torching-an-act-to-criticize-israel/
For “The Professor” to characterize an exercise of a constitutional right as “highly offensive and disturbing” I personally find reprehensible and disgusting. I intuit that “The Professor”, lest he face “a back lash” for agreeing that the defendant has a constitutional right to burn the flag he had best mollify the mentally misfit minions who do worry more about the flag under the auspices of which more murder, mayhem, war criminality for more than 200 years while its leaders have rendered the Constitution to hardly more than a Sears Roebuck catalog on a backwater privy.
You’re under the illusion that something of value occurs between your two ears.
Why? That is of far more value than the actions of the mental misfit snowfakes and hollyweeds or their representatives in Congress.
Anyone with $125 can file suit (unless it has gone up again). My guess is the insurance carrier for the city will settle.
Since any recovery would result in him recovering attorneys fees, which mount up quickly and often exceed actual damages by large amounts, I expect your right.
I don’t believe the city will become involved. It could be argued that the city and these officers’ supervisor immediately consulted with the state’s AG for advice and then ordered the man’s release from custody. Those actions might be considered reasonable. I noted that the complain listed these defendant officers in their individual capacity.
My memory is weak on this matter and I don’t have time to research this at the moment but either it is in WA or perhaps the federal level that a municipality cannot be forced to indemnify an officer who in his individual capacity violated a citizen’s civil rights and was sued within that capacity. So if my interpretation is correct, then the lawsuit not cost the taxpayers anything. Again, I could be incorrect in this so someone having better knowledge should answer this.
To get to the city, meaning imposing liability, one would look to their ordinances, regulations over the police department and hierarchy. If the Mayor was in favor of the arrest and prosecution then there could be some muni liability. Some states include the municipalities in the state sovereginty and one cannot sue the state sovereign. Sovereign immunity. I just got in from Illinois and locked the front door. Oh boy. And I don’t know what their laws are on that issue.
We live with a set of rules that lets us burn the flag. I’m not a fan of burning the flag, mostly because of what it represents (to me, personally). However, it is a protected form of expression that should not be messed with. It’s clearly stated in our own codified laws, and should not be up for debate at the state level.
While idiots, bigots, or people who are looking for attention do things across the board that are reprehensible (but protected forms of expression) – there are those that have things to say or communicate that are important and need to be protected as well. To infringe upon one polar end of the spectrum’s rights, you equally infringe upon the other as well.
Roger That
I want to add one thing to your excellent write up. It is not only idiots, bigots or people looking for attention that do things we may find reprehensible. People of conscience may do things that at first blush seem wrong, but after reflection, we may (or may not) understand what they are really trying to say with their actions. We may come to agree with them, we may come to see their actions as courageous or we may still find them as reprehensible. My only point being that it’s a mistake to assume some actions we disagree with are not motivated by a strong sense of justice.
Jill – an excellent point. There were several activities during the civil rights movement that were fought by local governments that were forms of protected speech. Though disliked by some (or many) in the local area, or across the country, they were protected forms of expression under the first amendment.
They were vindicated eventually, and it was by thanks to the law that it could be fought in the first place. That is, without lawlessness.
Their actions and words weren’t necessarily popular with everyone (understatement), but they needed to be said/done. The first amendment helps to ensure that should we as a country make a stupid decision somewhere down the line and need to be brought to task by ourselves, that we can do so without an authoritarian government trying to shut us up. That’s exactly contrary to the principles we formed this country on in the first place.
*That WOULD be contrary to the principles we formed this country on in the first place
I served for 25 years of active duty in the US Navy. I served to protect people such as this person to exercise their rights.
The Boy Scouts told me that any old flag should be burned……
Me too.
You do burn old flags. It’s the correct way to retire them. It involves cutting the field of stars from the stripes portion, and burning them in separate fires. It’s a ceremony of sorts to honor the flag.
You don’t light it on fire on a pole and wave it around or anything. That’s not even close to the right way to do it.
I wonder how the plaintiff would react if someone burned a rainbow flag in front of his house. NTTAWWT.
An individual’s reaction does not constitute the weight of the government. In any event, I’ll bet that this police department would not be so quick to take unconstitutional action against such a flag burner.
“I have never understood the burning of the flag which represents our collective rights, including free speech.”
It also represents the government of the US in all its repressive glory. Two sides of a coin.
“Urbana police have said they arrested Mellott to protect him from possible backlash from the online posts.”
This statement which attempts to cover a punitive executive action, one that can only be described as teaching that boy a lesson, should result in punitive damages.
Prof. Turley describes the defendant’s conduct as “highly offensive and disturbing,” but police rationale as “facially ridiculous.” It seems the defendant was making a protected political statement, but the police were lying to cover the intention of their actions. I think the latter’s conduct is the more highly offensive and disturbing if one considers right-wing authoritarianism to be problematic. Then, again, I don’t know that the majority of this blog’s subscribers think a police state is a problem.
Agreed. They would be thrilled if all “jerks” could be punished.
“…the police were lying to cover the intention of their actions”
~+~
That’s exactly what happened.
It is time for the legislator in Illinois to take as principled a stand and repeal this unconstitutional law. We can then continue as a society to denounce offensive acts like Mellott’s flag burning as a desecration of not only the flag but the rights that it represents.
I think there is room to argue the last line of the article is subtlety addressing the issue that if you take away someone’s right to burn the flag, you diminish or eliminate the “rights” the symbol represents – and to the degree of usurping those rights, justify the act of disrespect as a Constitutional right. Perhaps Professor Turley is also suggesting that making it easy to challenge such national symbols can have negative consequences as well – potentially rendering the importance of such rights/values the symbol represents as meaningless as the symbol. And finally he feels the social arena is where such challenges to the symbol should be weighed as the Constitutional issue is resolved. .
I agree with your assessment, the officers do not come out well by a comparison but I’m not sure Turley is wrong to avoid “weighing in” and declaring winners. After all, his very description rather pointedly allows the reader to do so.
“A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” <= From the fellow who freed everyone incarcerated under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
https://memory.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj/mtj1/027/027_0500_0501.pdf
To you the flag may represent free speech etc. .
To millions around the world it represents death and destruction.
What a national disgrace.
“In 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy
I agree with JT’s argument. Although JT and many others on this blog will not agree with me, I think every US citizen should be burning a flag right now. This nation is being destroyed by the powerful. Obama just made it “legal” open season to spy on everyone and have your information shared with all 17 agencies (and others we don’t know about) who are to report on you.
And people think they have to wait for Trump to resist fascism?
“The Obama administration just handed even more power to the incoming Trump administration to invade the privacy of American citizens. The recent approval of new procedures for an existing executive order will allow the NSA to share the private data it collects with all 16 agencies of the United States intelligence community. The 23-page outline of the new procedures lifts previous limits placed on the way information was filtered before being disseminated to individual agencies.
“As he hands the White House to Trump, Obama just unchained NSA from basic limits on passing raw intercepts to others,” NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden tweeted Thursday.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-13/snowden-slams-obama-after-expanding-unchained-nsa-surveillance-powers-donald-trump
The actions of Obama in stripping the constitution of any last meaning are complete. Let the flag burn.
I just read the Complaint. Here is some advice to the lawyers for the plaintiff. Amend the Complaint and add language in the right places for Conspiracy allegations. 42 U.S.C. Section 1985 and 1986. This way the statements and admissions made by other persons in the conspiracy can be admitted into evidence so the jury hears all the things wrong about why the cops busted this guy. Look at Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801 d 2 or thereabouts and read up on “statements of a party opponent” and their “agents” and then co conspirators. The statement, for example an email from some City Counselman who was pushing for the arrest, can come in against all the named defendants. That includes the City.
The town of Urbana probably has a flag too. The guy needs to burn that one this weekend. On television.
No, you can only burn your own flag. There are so many charges, from arson on down, it would be an enormously bad afternnon for him to burn the city’s flag.
He’s a jerk. So are his lawyers. So are most appellate judges.