I found this testimony today on the Citizens Flag Alliance website and wanted to share it with you because it expands (in more eloquent language) on my post from yesterday. When you think about it, it makes sense that the type of person who would be inclined to burn a flag in the first place, would probably be inclined not to pay for it, but burn someone elses flag instead.
Statement of John P. "Jake" Comer, past National Commander (1987-88) of the American Legion, to the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, on Senate Joint Resolution 4, March 10, 2004 (excerpt).
Nowhere does the Constitution grant absolute freedom of speech. Each person is held accountable for actions that violate the personal freedoms of others. Slander and libel are clearly punishable. Plagiarism is illegal. The Federal Communications Commission has the power to assess fines for violations of the public airways. The United States Capitol and the United States Supreme Court have punishable offenses for unauthorized assembly and demonstrations on its grounds, even if the act is an exercise of free speech.
When the Citizens Flag Alliance held a rally in Washington, DC, on the Capitol grounds several years ago, it had to obtain a permit for a parade and a permit for a press conference. Yet, when a group chose to physically desecrate flags on the steps of that Capitol to challenge the Flag Protection Act of 1989, a federal statute passed by Congress in an attempt to correct Texas v. Johnson, the law was ruled unconstitutional. In 1996, a teenager in Wisconsin lowered an American flag from the flagpole at a public golf course, defecated on the flag, and then placed the flag on the steps of the clubhouse. This conduct is clearly an act of delinquency rather than freedom of speech, but the state’s flag desecration law was ruled unconstitutional and he was exonerated of that particular charge.
Massachusetts has witnessed its share of flag desecration cases in recent years. On May 5, 2001, in Lawrence, a desecrated American flag was found lying on the front steps of City Hall. It is believed that vandals removed the flag from its pole across from City Hall and wrote anti-capitalist and racist slogans and an expletive on it. There were also burn marks on the flag.
Five months later, on October 18, Amherst College students were stunned moments after a pro-America rally involving more than 100 people ended when several protesters emerged from the crowd to set fire to a US flag. Ten demonstrators doused two flags with lighter fluid and set them on fire. Then, five members of the group spread a larger flag on the ground and stood on it while chanting anti-American slogans.
Seven months later, on Memorial Day 2002, in Braintree, Jose Santos awoke to find his US flag crumpled and burned on his front porch. Mr. Santos called police to report what he described as a "sad and very unpatriotic act" on a day when Americans are supposed to be remembering the sacrifices made for their freedom.
The actions of these individuals can hardly be called an expression of speech; it is behavior of the ugliest kind and should not be tolerated. A person cannot physical desecrate Old Glory with their tongue. Letting the American people have the final say on this issue seems so logical and democratic. Clearly, a flag constitutional amendment has the support of the vast majority of Americans. If former Senator Simon’s prognosis is accurate, that it would be the fastest ratified amendment in our history, why should the American people be denied an opportunity to decide the ultimate fate of this issue? If this is truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people, the amendment process surely demonstrates democracy-in-action.