The American flag is one step closer to protection
As expected, the U.S. House of representatives has passed the Flag Protection Amendment by a 286-130 vote margin. No big news there - the House has passed similar measures every time they have been introduced.
The real test comes sometime after the 4th of July holiday, when the Senate will vote on it. Unlike in years past, however, the vote count is very close. Many Senators who otherwise would vote against an amendment that bans desecration of the American flag, may consider voting for it to avoid alienating constituents.
What worries us is that while opponents of a measure that would ban flag burning understand exactly what is at stake, supporters, judging by their statements, seem to just want to convey the appearance of patriotism. To illustrate what I mean, consider the following statements:
In a column on Monday, writer Jan Larson, an opponent of the amendment wrote, "America is the land of the free. If we are to remain free, we can and must tolerate dissent no matter how offensive it may be."
This statement nails the opposition position exactly - the First Amendment should protect all forms of dissent, not just speech. Well, what about spitting in a politicians face. Should that be protected? Or throwing objects - pies, tomatos, etc. - at speakers you disagree with? Should that be protected?
Here’s a comment from Congressman Randy Cunningham, R-CA, made during the debate in the House today, "Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment." As noble as that sentiment is, it misses the real issue. Where do you draw the line for which "forms of dissent" will be tolerated and which will be prosecuted?