Every so often this comes up, and I usually find my "government-so-small-we-want-to-leave-you-alone" conservative friends advocating criminal penalties for a literally victimless action.
Have you heard about the #EricSheppardChallenge movement? They want to protest by having people take pictures of themselves stepping or stomping on a flag. Although I do find that particular method of "protest" offensive, I kept silent and just watched things unfold. I decided to stop that and post this when a friend of mine posted this on FaceBook.
![]()
Everyone who commented on the picture was in favor of criminal penalties against this, and some even indicated they would take care of things on their own, i.e. physical violence to stop it from happening. They firmly believe that desecrating the flag is against the law, and people who do it should be fined or imprisoned.
In conversations with the poster, I was told that we should "uphold the Constitution."
While I agree, I don't think this person realized that "upholding the Constitution" requires us to not only de-criminalize the activity, but also allow it to happen whether we like it or not.
The year was 1990. One year previously, SCOTUS had struck down a Texas law banning flag desecration. In response, Congress had passed a Federal version of the law that was broader than the Texas statute. It was promptly challenged, and in 1990 SCOTUS heard United States v. Eichman. They ruled that desecrating the flag is an inherently political statement, and therefore protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Emphasis added in both quotes below.)
They went on to say that it doesn't matter if "most people" find the speech or activity offensive, First Amendment protections still apply.
This issue couldn't be simpler. You and I may not like (or agree with) the message these protestors are attempting to communicate, and we may be deeply offended by the method they choose to express it (i.e. stepping on a flag), but in a free country they have every right to do it anyway.
If there is an existing Federal law banning flag desecration, it would also likely be found unconstitutional if challenged in court. We CANNOT throw people in jail or fine them for making political statements that we find distasteful.
And all you conservatives out there who often talk big about freedom, you might want to rethink this issue and stop calling for fines/arrest. I realize it's PC to be patriotic, but since when should patriotism trump freedom? And if it does, then WHY are we patriotic about a country that stomps all over freedom?
And for those who say they'll stop the "flag stomping" themselves, know that YOU will go to jail for that action, not the protestors.
As you should.
This issue couldn't be simpler... leave the protestors alone and let them have their say. It doesn't harm you or I in any way, shape, or form. But attempting to stop them violates every precept we're SUPPOSED to believe about freedom.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Have you heard about the #EricSheppardChallenge movement? They want to protest by having people take pictures of themselves stepping or stomping on a flag. Although I do find that particular method of "protest" offensive, I kept silent and just watched things unfold. I decided to stop that and post this when a friend of mine posted this on FaceBook.
Everyone who commented on the picture was in favor of criminal penalties against this, and some even indicated they would take care of things on their own, i.e. physical violence to stop it from happening. They firmly believe that desecrating the flag is against the law, and people who do it should be fined or imprisoned.
In conversations with the poster, I was told that we should "uphold the Constitution."
While I agree, I don't think this person realized that "upholding the Constitution" requires us to not only de-criminalize the activity, but also allow it to happen whether we like it or not.
The year was 1990. One year previously, SCOTUS had struck down a Texas law banning flag desecration. In response, Congress had passed a Federal version of the law that was broader than the Texas statute. It was promptly challenged, and in 1990 SCOTUS heard United States v. Eichman. They ruled that desecrating the flag is an inherently political statement, and therefore protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Emphasis added in both quotes below.)
Held: Appellees' prosecution for burning a flag in violation of the Act is inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Government concedes, as it must, that appellees' flag-burning constituted expressive conduct, and this Court declines to reconsider its rejection in Johnson of the claim that flag-burning as a mode of expression does not enjoy the First Amendment's full protection. It is true that this Act, unlike the Texas law, contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Government's asserted interest in protecting the "physical integrity" of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content, of free expression.
They went on to say that it doesn't matter if "most people" find the speech or activity offensive, First Amendment protections still apply.
This conclusion will not be reassessed in light of Congress' recent recognition of a purported "national consensus" favoring a prohibition on flag-burning, since any suggestion that the Government's interest in suppressing speech becomes more weighty as popular opposition to that speech grows is foreign to the First Amendment. While flag desecration -- like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures -- is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
This issue couldn't be simpler. You and I may not like (or agree with) the message these protestors are attempting to communicate, and we may be deeply offended by the method they choose to express it (i.e. stepping on a flag), but in a free country they have every right to do it anyway.
If there is an existing Federal law banning flag desecration, it would also likely be found unconstitutional if challenged in court. We CANNOT throw people in jail or fine them for making political statements that we find distasteful.
And all you conservatives out there who often talk big about freedom, you might want to rethink this issue and stop calling for fines/arrest. I realize it's PC to be patriotic, but since when should patriotism trump freedom? And if it does, then WHY are we patriotic about a country that stomps all over freedom?
And for those who say they'll stop the "flag stomping" themselves, know that YOU will go to jail for that action, not the protestors.
As you should.
This issue couldn't be simpler... leave the protestors alone and let them have their say. It doesn't harm you or I in any way, shape, or form. But attempting to stop them violates every precept we're SUPPOSED to believe about freedom.