Set The Flag On Fire

The National Review is wrong:

The Supreme Court got it wrong in 1989 and 1990, when it struck down first a state law and then a federal law banning flag-burning. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, not freedom of “expression”; and burning a flag is no more speech than nude dancing, public urination, or a barroom brawl — although each of these things may express people’s thoughts and feelings.

Let me amend that. The National Review is abysmally wrong and should be embarassed to have made this argument. Its editors have taken the Constitutional SAT test and failed.

Now let's stroll by the local watering hole and jot down the everyday pastimes of our neighbors:

• Nude dancing
• Public urination
• Barroom brawl
• Burning the flag

Which one of these these items do not belong?  Separately, what the hell kind of neighborhood is this anyway--because burning the flag while publicly urinating during a barroom brawl at a nude dance club is not what our people do. Friday nights, maybe.

But according to the National Review, burning a flag is no more speech than nude dancing, public urination, or a barroom brawl. Very bright and honorable people wrote that. I guess in every faction there are people who want a speech code for something.

UPDATE: Here's a column by Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman about the proposed constitutional amendment to permit a ban against flag burning (that prompted the NR editorial). Bill Frist:

Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) cast the debate in loftier terms. "Many Americans have come to see the flag as a sacred symbol of our nation and its values," he said. "Those who dislike American values have the right to express their opinions even when they are offensive. But I do not believe that the right to desecrate a symbol like our flag belongs in the same category."

"Desecration" is a word best reserved for religion, Senator. Let's not confuse this magnificent flag and all it represents with veneration of the Creator of the Universe, 'kay? And I don't know what hurts worse--agreeing with Sen. Patrick Leahy, also quoted in the column, or with Dana Milbank. A stopped clock, etc. But tinkering with the Constitution of the United States over something that happens maybe well over several times a year--I don't think so.

UPDATE DEUX: I hope reports via Allahpundit over at the Hot Air blog are correct that the amendment is going to fail.

UPDATE PHASE THREE: Via Planet Moron of all places, I see the amendment failed. As Planet Moron put it:

However, the primary concern is that the burning of the American flag causes some people offense, making this the conservative version of political correctness. But unlike timid liberals who satisfy themselves with campus speech codes and corporate sensitivity seminars, conservatives don’t mess around, they go straight to the governing document of the country. No doubt, this is fully in the spirit of our Founding Fathers... In fact, James Madison had probably meant to put something in about flag burning, but you know how constitutional conventions are, it’s always rush rush rush.

Comments

[leila.iler]

I live in California and the American flag was not only burned but also flown upside down BENEATH the Mexican flag. This occurred during the so-called "peaceful" rallies of illegal immigrants in May in California. Our respected Senator, Boxer, voted against this bill and her excuse was that she was essentially defending the free speech. I wonder how she feels if it were the Mexican flag being burned. Thank you for the opportunity of free speech.

[leila.iler]

Many Americans have died for the flag and our Senators, by a single spineless vote, refused to have an amendment to prevent the burning of our flag. Thank you, Senators, I now how I will vote for you in the future. I hope everyone remembers this vote.

[Christopher Fotos]

I hope so too. The Senators that voted to restrict free speech should be ashamed of themselves. Speech codes are no more attractive from the right than from the left. I gotta say, people who support these proposals either haven't thought through the consequences or have total confidence-for no good reason--that the things *they* want to say will never be restricted.