"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." – Sir Walter Scott
The Supreme Court has certainly caused a tangled web to be woven by their 1989 decision to classify flag burning as free speech. Two recent events illustrate how tangled the thinking on the burning of American flags issue has become. And it’s all because the Supreme Court chose to declare that the word "speech" means something entirely different from it’s definition.
The first item involves a lesbian couple in Wisconsin who found their rainbow flag had been removed from the front door, burned, then left in a neighbor’s yard. The police are considering this to be a hate crime. If taking a rainbow flag of someone’s door and burning it is a hate crime, then why is taking someone’s American flag off their flagpole and burning it not also a hate crime? Why isn’t burning a rainbow flag also considered free speech protected by the First Amendment? Do rainbow flags merit more legal protection than American flags?
The second incident occurred in the early morning hours Saturday in the Cincinnati area. Twenty American flags were taken from Jim Wessel’s front yard display, shoved under his daughter’s car and lit on fire. Not only did the American flags burn, but the car was burned beyond repair as well. The display was in honor of Wessel’s son-in-law, Pfc. Timothy Hines, who died in action. A $5,000 reward is being offered for anyone who provides information that leads to the arrest of the vandals. The police speculated that the flag burning was only the work of vandals and not the act of someone trying to make a political statement. How do they know that? Is there something about this flag burning that differs from other flag burnings in such a way as to suggest that this was not a political statement? If the perpetrator is caught and claims that he/she was making a political statement, will that change the outcome of the prosecution?
For the Supreme Court to rule that burning anything – American flags, rainbow flags or cardboard boxes – in public should be considered free speech was simply a very bad idea.