Allowing violence against flag-burners assaults reason
http://www.freedomforum.org/first/outrage.asp
By Freedom Forum Online staff 12.7.00
Even though almost no one burns flags anymore, an awful lot of people still
become quite agitated just talking about flag-burning. Some great patriots
take completely opposite positions. But however emotional they are, those
conflicts are usually of an intellectual rather than a physical nature.
A particularly alarming development in Missouri has the potential to change
that. A Republican state legislator has introduced a bill to legalize the use
of force against someone who burns a flag.
"You should be able to take hold of the flag and take it off the ground and
rescue it," state Rep. Sam Gaskill of Washburn, a former Vietnam fighter
pilot, told the Associated Press. "If the guy doesn't want to let go of it or
he swings back, then the person ought to fight back."
Asked by a reporter whether his bill would allow someone to take aggressive
action against a flag-burner, he responded, "I'm sure they could."
Under Gaskill's proposal, the use of force would be allowed if "the person
reasonably believes" such force is necessary to prevent "the defilement or
dishonorable desecration" of the U.S. flag. A person using such force against
another could not be charged with theft or assault, although the bill stops
short of allowing deadly force.
What a relief. It would be the ultimate irony if someone could legally kill
someone else for burning the symbol of the freedoms that Americans hold dear,
including the freedom to protest.
But in Gaskill's view, "What it (the flag) represents deserves more respect
than the protest message of some liberal hippie."
What's wrong with his approach?
First, there aren't many hippies burning flags these days. One can perhaps
understand Gaskill's sensitivity as a Vietnam veteran to the flag-burning
protests of the 1960s. But the Congressional Research Service, a branch of
the Library of Congress, reported earlier this year that it was able to find
only 43 incidents of flag-burning between January 1995 and January 1999.
Moreover, most of the perpetrators were subject to existing laws dealing with
such crimes as trespass, theft, vandalism, breach of peace or arson.
Second, public servants should not be drafting laws that encourage
street-thug solutions to social disputes. Gaskill should be functioning as an
example for others, protecting and preserving the laws of the land and
inspiring respect for a democratic system of government. By advocating
violence against others, he has cheapened the office he holds.
Third and most important, flag-burning is constitutionally protected free
speech. Very few people like to see a U.S. flag being burned in protest, but
that sort of political expression is precisely the sort of freedom the flag
symbolizes. Cloth and thread and color wear out and fade, but the liberty
that the flag stands for never does.
