By Molly Weisner
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” America’s founding fathers wrote that undeniable statement of freedom to be understood in its purest, most uncomplicated way. There is no asterisk; there is no footnote; freedom is an all-inclusive contract each American signs with their first breath. So why, when a few feathers get ruffled, does the American public feel the need to prohibit “aesthetically unpleasing” speech? It’s uncomfortable, sure. Offensive, of course; everybody gets offended at something. However, the truth about the flag desecration controversy is not whether or not the Founding Fathers will be turning in their graves at the malicious twisting of our flag’s revered history. It’s really a matter of people believing that certain speech can be silenced if it makes them squirm and shuffle in their seats. It’s really a matter of picking your battles—and this should not be one of them. For that reason, desecration of the flag should not be condemned as unconstitutional because freedom sides with no one and everyone at the same time.
In an effort to appeal to the strict interpreters of the Constitution and fact-following dissenters, flag burning would be a direct contradiction to three of the five protections under Amendment I. For one, flag burning is a speech freedom. People, who are often left to communicate via symbols and demonstrations just like any other upstanding organization, have the right to use the flag as a means of protest. “Expressive conduct,” like flag burning, is unconditionally protected under Freedom of Speech. Second, in the context in which it has been used, flag burning has typically been an act of government protest. And as many may recall, the First Amendment protects that, too, as a freedom “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Finally, a third facet of flag burning is protected as the right to peaceably assemble. A disgruntled group of citizens has every constitutional right to gather and burn a flag if it means that they are doing so under controlled, purposed, and safe circumstances and without serious disturbances.
Really, much of the constitutionality of flag burning is very explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the whole reason these rights were created in the first place was to ensure that particularly finicky people wouldn’t overturn a movement for its contentious nature. If flag desecration is causing this much of a stir, then people must simply return to the basics. The constitution does not “loophole” types of speech; it is all created as equally as the men who are to uphold it; therefore is not partial to “good” and “bad” types of speech.
It is easy for Americans to sweep the “freedom of speech” rug out from other outspoken people, but poke at their personal beliefs and you’ll be met with an incredulous roar. There’s no denying that the American flag is indeed a symbol that embodies our nation. It is also true that America’s flag flies over all of its citizens, and is not merely a different opinion. But forcing its allegiance is. Advocates of flag burning are not to be pegged as disrespectful, sectionalist traitors. It’s not the demoralization of American values they support; it’s the preservation of a freedom that could be twisted if we allow controversy to divide us. Restricting the right to burn a flag for political dissent could suddenly open the playing field for more restrictions. This “slippery slope” could pave the way for future courts to use the flag-desecration amendment as precedent to justify future inhibitions of the First Amendment. And if you truly compare the “epidemic of flag-burning” with the very real social pressure to think twice about extreme measures of expression, the problem of flag-burning is not out of hand and does not warrant a finite bill against it.
A constitutional amendment against flag burning would provoke an irony in itself; prohibiting an act of free speech defeats the flags inherent meaning. Supporting unconditional free speech (when lives are not threatened) is more central to the very flag’s message than preventing dissention.
Bottom line, Americans need to assess what fight they really want to pick. If America’s potential to be “less free” through a slippery slope of Amendment I addendums is more important than a 24 hour tabloid-filling flag burning, then perhaps America isn’t as strong and fearless as it appears. America the Brave cannot rest honestly on those laurels if it can’t withstand the inevitable controversy among a people as diverse as she is.
Comments