Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, July 14, 1995 TAG: 9507190007
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The evasion does nothing to inspire confidence in the wisdom of the proposal.
"Talking about the flag is free speech," Goodlatte has written. "Criticizing America and its Government, for those who care to do so, is free speech. But physically desecrating an American flag is not. Americans know free speech when they see it, and they know that someone burning our national symbol or cutting it to pieces is wrong ...."
Alas, the congressman is only partly right. And the part that's not exhibits perilously sloppy thinking.
Yes, it's wrong to show contempt for the flag. About that, Goodlatte is correct. But the implication that free speech is contingent upon its correctness misses the whole point of the free-speech principle.
Similarly, Goodlatte is correct in noting that talking about the flag or criticizing the government is free speech. But the implication that free speech covers only verbal statements, and not also the expressive elements of physical acts, is a startlingly cramped understanding of the freedoms enjoyed by Americans and represented by the flag. By this standard, it would be no free-speech violation if the government were to outlaw peace symbols, abstract art, black armbands or arched eyebrows, not to mention some political cartoons.
The very fact that the American flag is invested with so much meaning, is so potently expressive, is why dishonoring it is so deeply offensive. If it were just a piece of cloth, who'd care? If the point of burning it were not to make a political statement, who'd care?
Not all arguments for the flag amendment deny so cavalierly its attenuation of free-speech principles. Some argue that the need to maintain respect for our most cherished national symbol outweighs whatever modest curtailment of individual liberties that might ensue from the amendment. Flag desecration is, after all, a rare occurrence.
The flag is particularly important in America, it could be asserted, because the country lacks other concrete symbols of nationhood, such as a royal family or a primarily ceremonial president.
While these arguments also fail to convince, they at least have the virtue of greater intellectual honesty and a more candid recognition of the stakes. They don't make the shallow assumption that free speech refers only to words. They don't contradict themselves by arguing, in effect, that flags don't make a statement.
Still, the rarity of flag desecration only begs the question of why it should be criminalized. The notion that the restriction on speech would be slight because few Americans want to burn their flag is too much like saying that, since few words begin with the letter "x", banning them would be a small matter. Freedom is not so easily compartmentalized.
We hope not, anyway. The principles for which the flag stands aren't so frail that a few flag-burners threaten them. It's the politicians that worry us.
by CNB