more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brad Templeton <btm () templetons com>
Date: June 28, 2006 6:00:27 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: NMunro () nationaljournal com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on more on Andrew Tobias on Flag Burning

On Wed, Jun 28, 2006 at 05:31:06PM -0400, David Farber wrote:
> Is the dislike of a flag-burning amendment powered by opposition to  
> the
> amendment's moral claim - that our personal freedom of expression  
> should
> be limited for the good of the collective?

Certainly in part.  I agree with the supreme court that flag burning
is an expressive act of protest, the sort of protest the founders
wanted to protect in the first amendment.   I agree with their
sentiment and oppose efforts to weaken that individual right for the
good of the collective.

And it does seem particularly odd that a nation which could not ratify
an amendment to solifiy equal rights for all sexes would spend the
highly-politically-expensive amendment process on taking _away_ rights,
to save the flag.

The amendments are largely a bill of rights.  The most blatant right- 
removing
amendment, the 18th, met a deserving end.  Only the 16th seems to  
qualify
as a remaining rights-remover.

If ratified, the amendment would mean it was legal to burn the flag to
protest the USA outside the USA but not inside it.   How can a country
claim to be the bastion of freedom of expression if this is true?
> Is the dislike of the amendment powered by fear than any victory by  
> the
> collective-faction will lead to more victories by that faction and  
> thus
> result in practical, tangible limits on our freedom of expression?

There is some fear of this, but it's lesser.  Again, amending the
constitution is a long and complex process, we should not wish to see
the process of doing it to reduce free speech rights become any easier.
> Is the dislike of the amendment powered by a desire not to grant  
> even a
> symbolic victory to another sector in society, in this case, to the
> socially conservative Republican voters?
Nah, who cares?   I suppose some Democrats might.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/