Flag Desecration is a First Amendment Right of Free Speech (Original Essay)

I am opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment that will ban desecration of the U.S. flag. As of this date, the bill has passed in the U.S. Senate. In order for the bill to be ratified as a constitutional amendment, it must also pass in the U.S. House of Representatives and among two-thirds of the states. In my opinion, patriotic state representatives will also vote against this amendment. This bill is so obviously a violation of the First Amendment rights for free speech that I am shocked and appalled that it has already passed the House. Additionally, doesn't anyone in Congress grasp the irony of passing a law that restricts constitutional rights by prohibiting the desecration of a symbol of constitutional rights? HELLO!?! Was I asleep in my American Government class or wasn't this the reason that the country was founded in the first place? I personally don't agree with desecrating the flag. I agree with the authors of the bill that it is disrespectful. I could also add several other adjectives -- reprehensible, offensive and objectionable, for a start. However, our country is based upon the principle that people may make statements or commit actions that offend others. Free speech should not be limited only to that speech that other people find agreeable and pleasing. If it were to be so, then it would not be "free" at all. In fact, it would be speech that is more akin to North Korea, Iran or China. Voltaire has been attributed as saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The larger, and more frightening, implications of this proposed amendment are the slippery slope that will follow if this bill passes. If desecrating the flag is "disrespectful" and becomes a sacred cow that no one can touch, then what other criticisms, protests, satires and documentaries regarding the government and symbols of the governement can be considered "disrespectful"? Regardless of your political affiliation or personal feelings, consider for a moment a USA where the following are considered "disrespectful," and therefore are banned:1) Documentaries that portray the government negatively 2) The Daily Show and other political satire 3) a late-show comedian's monologue Finally, the U.S. will rise to the epitome of hypocrisy if she claims to be the shining light of democracy that wants to influence other nations to follow in her path, while at the same time restricting the constitutional rights of its citizens. I wrote Kay Bailey Hutchison, the TX Representative, a letter to express my views. In a form letter, she told me that she welcomed my thoughts and comments on the issue. Her letter said, "The American flag is recognized around the world as a powerful symbol of our heritage and our freedom, which many have died defending. I support this legislation because I believe it is important to protect our beloved national symbol." My response to Hutchison is that the soldiers are not supposed to die defending the symbol of freedom. They die defending the freedom itself. I do not understand how politicians do not grasp the supreme irony that they are restricting the very freedom which they claim to be defending. It seems that since 9/11, the country has forgotten what it truly means to be patriotic in a democracy. Patriotic Americans are not hypocrites who express agreement with government policies when they actually do not believe in them. They do not blindly believe government assertions or follow governmental policies if they oppose moral or ethical beliefs. Patriotic Americans love their country enough to publicly (and perhaps even obnoxiously) state their opinions, criticisms and dissension. If the U.S. House of Representatives allow this bill to pass, they are in effect allowing the terrorists to win because they are turning the U.S. into the type of country that the terrorists want -- a country that is more autocratic, intellectually stifling, and democratically repressed.