Mexican Flag Flown Above US Flag

On the national level the Federal Flag Code1 provides uniform guidelines for the display of and respect shown to the flag. In addition to the Code, Congress has by statute designated the national anthem and set out the proper conduct during its presentation.2 The Code is designed "for the use of such civilian groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments" of the federal government.3 Thus, the Flag Code
does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.

In addition to the Flag Code, a separate provision contained in the Federal Criminal Code established criminal penalties for certain treatment of the flag.6 Prior to 1989, this provision provided criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag. In response to the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson7 (which held that anti-desecration statutes are unconstitutional if aimed at suppressing one type of expression), Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to provide criminal penalties for certain acts which violate the physical integrity of the flag.8 This law imposed a fine and/or up to one year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor, or trampling upon any flag of the United States. In 1990, however, the Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act was
unconstitutional as applied to a burning of the flag in a public protest.9
All the states, at one time or another, have enacted laws relating to the United States flag.10 Even though the Federal Flag Code does not provide penalties for certain conduct or may not govern certain practices, state law may do so. Therefore, it is advisable to consider applicable provisions of state law, as well as federal law, on questions of proper use of the flag.

NRS 201.290 Penalty; exception.

1. Any person who, in any manner, for exhibition or display, puts or causes to be placed any inscription, design, device, symbol, portrait, name, advertisement, words, character, marks or notice, or sets or places any goods, wares and merchandise whatever upon any flag or ensign of the United States, or state flag of this State, or ensign, evidently purporting to be either of the flags or ensign, or who in any manner appends, annexes, or affixes to any such flag or ensign any inscription, design, device, symbol, portrait, name, advertisement, words, marks, notice or token whatever, or who displays or exhibits or causes to be displayed or exhibited any flag or ensign, evidently purporting to be either of the flags, upon which shall in any manner be put, attached, annexed or affixed any inscription, design, device, symbol, portrait, name, advertisement, words, marks, notice or token whatever, or who publicly or willfully mutilates, tramples upon, or who tears down or willfully and maliciously removes while owned by others, or defames, slanders, or speaks evilly or in a contemptuous manner of or otherwise defaces or defiles any of the flags, or ensign, which are public or private property, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. This section shall not apply to flags or ensigns the property of or used in the service of the United States or of this State, upon which inscriptions, names of actions, words, marks or symbols are placed pursuant to law or authorized regulations.

3 Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.

I didn't say the display was correct, only that it's not illegal. Paragraph three says...

Quote:

3 Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.

See what happens...

http://www.krnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7156726

Once upon a time, right thinking Republicans and Democrats both would say something to the effect of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Dead link. What does happen?

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Flag-Ripper Accused of Hate Posting

By Martin Salazar
Copyright © 2007 Albuquerque Journal; Journal Staff Writer

The UNM student who ignited controversy when he ripped apart a Mexican flag last month had earlier posted a statement on the Internet calling Mexicans "wet-backs," a university department charged Tuesday.
Peter Lynch, who has admitted taking down and vandalizing the Mexican flag that was flying on campus, said he doesn't believe he posted the message.
El Centro de la Raza, a department focused on Latino issues, accused Lynch of exposing his feelings about the Mexican population on a MySpace message board.
Lynch, who stammered when asked Tuesday whether he had written the comment, said, "No, I don't believe I wrote that."
He has repeatedly said that he was acting out of patriotism, not racism, when he ripped down the Mexican flag on U.S. Constitution Day. He said he pulled it down because it was flying unaccompanied by a U.S. flag.
"It is the position of El Centro de la Raza that the acts of Peter Lynch were acts of hate and should be treated as such," El Centro director Veronica Mendez-Cruz said in a statement.
Mendez-Cruz is referring to a lengthy comment in which a writer identified as Lynch states, "I say next time the (expletive deleted) wet-backs march down our streets we load up on Keith's semi, and fly my garrison sized US flag then we drive threw the (expletive deleted)!"
The comment was posted on a message board focused on the question, "What do we do about the illegal immigrants here?" The posting contains Lynch's name and photograph. The comment was posted July 21, about two months before Lynch ripped down the Mexican flag.
Although the posting was later deleted, the search engine Google kept an archived copy of the message board.
Lynch is due in court today for a bond arraignment hearing on a charge of criminal damage to property stemming from his Sept. 17 destruction of the Mexican flag.
" ... I can't imagine when I would have made a quote like that or said anything like that, but had I said something like that it certainly was not in response to this incident," he said in a telephone interview Tuesday afternoon.
When asked again whether he had made the statement, he said, "I'm saying that statement didn't come from me."
Lynch said he doesn't share the message's sentiments.
"Nobody deserves to be murdered," he said. "I mean ... that statement is like, let's murder everybody who's not ... no I don't share those kinds of (sentiments)."
Mendez-Cruz said her department's primary concern is the safety of students and the community.
"We believe the act of desecrating the Mexican flag came from Peter Lynch's feelings of hatred and Anglo-American superiority over people of color," she states in the Web statement. "Given all of the recent and past hate crimes that have gone unreported and undisciplined, El Centro de la Raza takes a stand and is demanding further action from the University to prevent actions such as this to be underestimated or disguised in the future."
Lynch's destruction of the Mexican flag sparked a debate in Albuquerque and across the country.
Lynch, an Air Force veteran, said he was angry that UNM was flying the Mexican flag without the U.S. flag, a violation of the U.S. Flag Code. He complained to university officials and waited for the problem to be fixed.
When nothing was done, Lynch said he pulled down the flag, ripped it apart and handed it over to the Air Force ROTC office.
UNM police subsequently charged Lynch with misdemeanor criminal damage to property. If convicted, Lynch faces up to six months in jail and up to a $500 fine.
News of the charges against Lynch led to an outpouring of support for him. Veterans and others defended his actions as protecting the flag and all it symbolizes?- and not an act of racism.
Lynch and the university acknowledge that the incident resulted from miscommunication. The Mexican flag, put up in commemoration of Mexican Independence Day, was never supposed to be left flying by itself. When the Army ROTC went to retire the U.S. and state flags on the evening of Sept. 14, they left the Mexican flag because they thought its owners would return that same evening to take it down. That didn't happen.
On the following Monday, Army ROTC students who were supposed to raise the U.S. and state flags forgot to do so.
Lynch said he tried to replace the Mexican flag, but El Centro turned him down.

On the following Monday, Army ROTC students who were supposed to raise the U.S. and state flags forgot to do so.

Once upon a time, right thinking Republicans and Democrats both would say something to the effect of "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As someone who performed in a military color guard for three years, I like to see the flag used properly, but I do not condone physical attacks on those whose speech I disagree with. Nor do I support attacks on their property. If you want to stage a flag waving picket of this business, great. If you want to form a mob and tear down his flag post, sorry I disagree.