Flag burning/Cross Burning: Both expression?

Lash

The question surely is...what is expressed? And then, is it the sort of expression which the writers of the constitution had in mind when they talked about allowing freedom of expression.

Burning a cross expresses what? Surely, white supremacy and segregation more than anything else.

Burning a flag expresses what? Disagreement/disgust with one's government or its policies.

Here's a rather good example of how Dinesh D'Sousa's term 'political correctness' is used incautiously, which it commonly is.

You left one question out
Neither cross nor flag burning should be protected.

No, that's the last one.

Blatham--
When it matters what is being expressed, you move away from the purity of the law, and decide what is ok to express and what is not.

This is my point.

I stand by my opinion that, entertaining the supposed content of the intended expression, is swayed by popular mores, which again are swayed by 'political correctness'.

Lash Goth
Sorry I meant to say both cross burning and flag burning should not be allowed.

Lash

Frankly, I think you are just taking the intellectually easy way out of a sticky problem with an absolute. The classic line, of course, from an ex American supreme court justice is "No one has the 'right' to yell FIRE! in a burning building".

What is being expressed is not at all irrelevant to the purpose of the constitutional goal, but intrinsic to it.

How would you feel about the cross burners if, after their happy weiny roast, walked down the street with banners proclaiming "Get rid of the niggers!"? Allowable expression?

burning a flag is allowable burning a cross in your own yard is allowable burning it in my yard and i load my rifle

Ah, but you are comparing apples to bathtubs, blatham. The cross burning, it seems, is not protected if I understand correctly, for being a nonspecific expression. Flag burning is protected, but shouldn't be, for the exact same reason. "Get rid of the niggers" is specific, but incites violence, or could be easily be taken to by a "reasonable man" standard.

If my opinion is unclear, none of the above should be protected as free speech.

If you burn a flag you are making a political statement. Almost no one will like you and you will have set back the cause you espouse seriously. But you should be allowed this expression.
Burning a cross in the classic KKK way is an act of aggression against specific people and should not be tolerated at all. On the other hand, burning a cross in some other way without the ritual and far away from a possible target person could mean something else, I suppose.

blatham--
You strayed from the topic. You added something else that does not occur in my scenario.

I am limiting our discussion on the burning of items. The reason I did that is precisely due to where you took it. I assert that BECAUSE of what people fear may accompany the act, they go a step further, as you did, and make judgements not based on fairness or the issue at hand, but on what they fear may happen next.

I do appreciate you illustrating that point, and that is not a smarty pants put down from me.

Edgar, as you said, the burning of the cross seems to unfairly come pre-packaged with a set of feelings. The cross is an item; the flag is an item. Burning items should bring the same, equal right.

My sneaky, little point here is MY feelings toward my flag are just as important as someone else's feelings about cross-burning.

Why are my feelings set aside, but those who hate cross-burning have their feelings elevated above mine?? I feel it is constitutionally wrong. Both or neither.

dys--I'm with you.
all--loving the discourse.

I take your correction, edgarblythe, regarding the crossburning. My opinion remains the same - that none should be protected.

Me too, Lash. Imagine my chagrin upon discovering dys was a dude!

Why, weaselly rat,
Had you been fooled by the long, flowing locks in his old avatar?

Goodness gracious, you guys. It's rather like you want the law to be an ass.

Lash

You limit the range of your thinking on this to "item" vs "item". That serves your argument, and it lets us all off the hook in having to think anything complicated, but it doesn't serve your community because it doesn't speak to the reasons why we have freedoms of, and limits on, expression.

A cross burning is not just a hunk of wood that happened to catch on fire. It is a symbolic act which represents sentiments and ideas, precisely as does the banner in my example. A swastika on a Jewish grave is merely spray paint? Incitement to hatred...yes, maybe.

roger

Perhaps someone who is better versed on constitutional law can forward the legal rationale on why flag burning is protected, but I'll send five bucks to everyone here if my notion is not the key element.

The distinction between political statement and physical intimidation is very clear. If emotion was what we were to go on I would be against the right to burn flags also. And, like PDiddie I'd be getting some sort of weapon to use against the cross burners. Fortunately, we have laws that very adequately cover these issues.

Edgar

Yes. Though I must confess I truly don't understand why folks get upset when a flag gets burned. If someone were to rip up a Canadian flag and use it for toilet paper, it would have no consequence for the nation, or any group or individual whatsoever.

And if I burned a cross in my front yard, for whatever hideous reason, no one else would be affected, either. No one would be stricken, as if it had mighty voodoo powers.

blatham--
I still think when a cross is given an 'emotional value' and a flag, a lesser 'emotional' value--who gets to choose those values? And why?

I believe that burning a flag is protected because it is symbolic act showing dissatisfaction with the government. As Americans we are free to question and show disapproval with the government. It is a protected right, freedom of speech.

Burning a cross is not protected because it is a symbolic act that is well known as an expression of hate for an innocent segment of the population. It has been therefore deemed a hate crime.

But you're new, Lash. When Dyxlexia started, his avatar was like a big feminine looking eye.

Sorry, not trying to sidetrack the discussion, but that seemed worth clarification.

Lash

No, that's clearly not so. People did get very badly harmed, and intentionally harmed, by the folks who burn crosses. You burning a cross on your front lawn obviously isn't the issue or the problem, and bringing it up here is just irrelevant.

And it isn't that the cross and flag have different values, for god's sakes. The cross could have been, by historical chance, a barn door or a christmas tree. It is what this ACT symbolizes and represents.