Bill Frist
plans on proposing a Constitutional amendment to "protect the flag" from "physical assault." Senator Frist, in a round about way, acknowledges that this is an abridgement of free speech when he writes, "exercising one's right to free speech by destroying the very icon of that right need not be one of them."
I've already written
here why I believe it is antithetical to the principles of a secular democracy to be creating sacred icons.
This is the sort of Orwellian political grandstanding that I abhor. Under the pretense of protecting
free speech America, Senator Frist would prohibit a means of expressing dissent. Legislating nationalistic orthodoxy is not patriotism, and one would hope that a United States Senator would be capable of telling the difference.
Flag burning does not threaten our freedom, but blasphemy laws do.
2 comments:
I seriously cannot believe that this person is likely gonna be our next president.
"To these individuals, I would ask: Is defacing a government building speech?No, it is considered a criminal act of vandalism."
Er .. that's because I do not own that piece of property. Whereas, I own the flag that I am burning.
Also, where's it gonna stop and how will it be defined? Can I burn the photograph of a flag? an I burn a flag as long as it's not apparent that it's a flag? This is such a pile of rubbish and may woe befall America if it elects this idiot as president in 1008.
This is such a pile of rubbish and may woe befall America if it elects this idiot as president in 1008.
Interesting numerical typo there. ;-) It may indeed feel like we're living in medieval times if Dr. Videotape were to get elected.
On the other hand, we've already established a precedent for electing idiots...
Post a Comment