Bad Idea of the Day

12 Responses to “Bad Idea of the Day”

1. Kevin Murphy Says:
   June 22nd, 2005 at 10:31 pm

   Trust me, they’ll find a way. Idiocy always finds a way.

2. Xrlq Says:
   June 22nd, 2005 at 10:45 pm

   I suppose you’re right. My concern is that when they do find a way, it may be something more harmful than the purely symbolic act they perform now.

3. Patterico Says:
   June 23rd, 2005 at 7:07 am

   I find it hard to get exercised about this issue either way. It’s kinda dumb, but at least they’re going about it the right way.

   It’ll never get anywhere anyway.

4. Patrick Says:
   June 23rd, 2005 at 7:57 am

   It’s nice to see the Republicans using their majority to really get some important stuff done. Idiots.

5. Xrlq Says:
   June 23rd, 2005 at 8:17 am

   It’s kinda dumb, but at least they’re going about it the right way.

   Now there’s a ringing endorsement. Don’t most dumb laws get passed the right way?

6. Patterico Says:
   June 23rd, 2005 at 10:10 am

   A lot of them are blatantly unconstitutional, and the legislature passes them anyway, rather than properly seeking a constitutional amendment. Here, they’re going for the amendment. That’s the right way to do it.

   What would be the big deal if it passed? It’s hardly a bigger restriction on political speech than the BCRA — not even close, in my opinion.

   Like I say: kinda dumb, but so what?

7. Patterico Says:
   June 23rd, 2005 at 2:54 pm

   The best argument against this was made in a comment thread at Captain Ed’s: any defendant prosecuted under a flag-burning law would be seen by some as a free-speech martyr.

   Why make a hero of someone most people think is a goat?

8. Kevin Murphy Says:
   June 23rd, 2005 at 8:10 pm

   I think flag-burning should remain protected speech — government should not interfere. I also think private persons who beat the crap out of someone who burns a flag are engaging in their own protected speech.

9. Paul Deignan Says:
   June 24th, 2005 at 12:35 am

   The flag is used as a symbol to rally troops towards a national goal (and to their deaths).

   If we should agree that some Americans can be allowed to desicrate this symbol, then we should also agree that it is unfit as a symbol of sacrifice.

   My life will not be sacrificed under a symbol that the people it represents do not uniformly respect. No one else should be asked to give such a cheap symbol respect either. It is like worshipping at an alter that is routinely used as a latrine by your fellow parishoners. What sense does that make?

10. Xrlq Says:
    June 24th, 2005 at 6:42 am

    No one else should be asked to give such a cheap symbol respect either. It is like worshipping at an alter that is routinely used as a latrine by your fellow parishoners. What sense does that make?

    It doesn’t make sense to worship any symbol. Troops should be fighting for the principles our flag stands for, not for the flag itself. The analogy doesn’t work because the few guys who would want to use your altar as a latrine are not your fellow parishioners; they’re people who hate your church and everything it stands for.

11. TJ Jackson Says:
    June 28th, 2005 at 6:42 am

    I have heard a whole lot of nonsense around about ideals rather than symbols. Hello. Why do you think people burn the flag instead of say Bush’s picture? They are show their contempt for what America stands for.

    If it is nonsense to ban flag burning why is cross burning illegal, the painting of swastikas on temples? Or better yet why have our craven politicans through their ill advised campaign reforms banned free speech prior to the election. Hello.

    The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier has a 24/7 sentry on it because in the 30s some folks thought it was appropriate to defame the site. Are we to say we should accept this? Is nothing sacred as long as we frame it as free speech? The contradictions inherent in most of the statements here betray both a lack of knowledge and a lack of thinking.

    Prior to 1989 48 states had bans against flag burning. The country wasn’t a fascist state when the 5 cretins in black trampled on these states and their citizens. So why would people oppose a amendment that allows the American people to speak? Unless they thought they know better than their fellow citizens.

12. Xrlq Says:
    June 28th, 2005 at 9:12 am

    Burning a cross on someone else’s property and painting a swastika on a temple owned by someone else are hardly analogous to desecrating a flag owned by the person desecrating it. The communicative aspect of the three examples, by contrast, clearly is protected speech. One of the fringe benefits of living in a free country is that you are allowed to hate freedom and say so out loud.

    I agree that campaign finance “reform” is a much greater threat to the free exchange of ideas than a ban on flag burning would be. That doesn’t make either of them a good idea, however.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail