Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, July 29, 1995 TAG: 9507310014
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERT GOODLATTE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Of course, words or other forms of expression do not have to be correct in order to be protected. And clearly, free speech goes beyond the written or spoken word to include other forms of expression, including the wearing of symbols and other actions.
But there you end the debate when, in fact, it should be beginning. Not all actions constitute free speech, and I am hardly alone in asserting that flag desecration isn't free speech to be protected under the First Amendment.
``I believe that the states and federal government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace,'' wrote former Chief Justice Earl Warren. This view is shared by many past and present justices of the U.S. Supreme Court across the ideological spectrum, including Hugo Black, Abe Fortas, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor and current Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
These eminent men and women haven't taken a merely political stance based upon ``shallow assumptions'' or ``perilously sloppy thinking'' - labels your editorial attaches to supporters of the flag amendment. Rather, they rely upon well-established principles. ``Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society,'' wrote Rehnquist, ``is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution or flag burning.''
The flaw with your entire line of reasoning is your concept of free speech - it isn't and never has been the right to do anything you want to do anytime you want to do it. Rather, it's a precious liberty founded in law - a freedom preserved by respect for the rights of others.
To say that society isn't entitled to establish rules of behavior governing its members is either to abandon any meaningful definition of civilization or to believe that civilization can survive without regard to the feelings or decent treatment of others. To burn a flag in front of a veteran or someone else who has put his or her life on the line for their country is a despicable act not deserving protection. By your standards, to burn a cross on your front lawn would be OK, no matter how intimidating that might be to your neighbor.
It's well-established that certain types of speech may be prevented under some circumstances, including lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, insulting or fighting words. When it comes to actions, the proscriptions may be even broader. That's where I have voted to put flag desecration - back where 48 state legislatures thought it was when they passed laws prohibiting it.
This amendment doesn't, in any way, alter the First Amendment. It simply corrects a misguided court interpretation of that amendment. As Justice Rehnquist eloquently observed in concluding his dissent:
``Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized governments are instituted ... . The government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight.''
I am proud to play a part in trying to right that wrong.
Robert Goodlatte, of Roanoke, is congressman for the 6th District.
by CNB