Which of the following statements comes closest to capturing your opinion on the issue of flag burning?

Terror War Colors '02 Election - Washington Post - 16 hours ago
... Web site that Sen. Tom Harkin (D) opposed a constitutional amendment to ban flag
burning in 1995. "After the tragic events of Sept. 11," said the Ganske for ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26044-2002Jul4.html

I'd say I don't care but I really don't like the idea of trashing or wrecking anything.

I think flag burning is wrong, but I support a person's right to do it.

I wouldn't do it, but I support a person's right to do it.

Burning a flag is like setting fire to a person's last name, it's like trying to eradicate their identity

Although it is interesting that the excepted way to get rid of a flag if it is faded or badly damaged is to burn it.

legitimate

Very different circumstances. Do you kill a beloved pet when it is full of life? Do you put it to sleep when it is sick and dying. The flag is the living emblem of what it represents.

No, it's a piece of cloth with some fancy dye job. There is nothing living about it. It is an inanimate object that people have elevated to a God-like status in their infinite LACK of wisodm

I feel the only time it's ever appropriate to burn a flag is when it's being destroyed because it's badly torn or tattered and even then the act should be done with the utmost respect.

I think it's silly rather than wrong. A flag is only a symbolic piece of cloth, and by burning it the protester is falling into exactly the same trap as those who are offended by a flag being burned.

If we outlaw flag burning- what next?

It's okay.Burn all you want,I don't care.

I think flag burning is a legitimate form of protest and I support a person's right to do it.
AND...
I think flag burning is wrong, but I support a person's right to do it

It seems to me that this is a fairly popular way for people to demonstrate their opposition to the policies of whichever nation's flag they are burning. I don't see anything wrong with it. Flags are just pieces of cloth. The whole thing is purely symbolic. Better that people burn flags, rather than burn other people...

I think that when a group of people make a lot of noise against something like that, if anything, it just encourages the behavior. The flag burners would like nothing more than a strong reaction. They would probably stop doing it if the reaction was more like "Hmmm? What? Oh yeah, that's nice. Now what are you going to do?"

legitimate and support it whole heartedly!!

It's CL-OTH A rag. What do I care? I think most flags are pretty, but burning them doesn't seem especially sacrilegious to me.

Burning a flag is like setting fire to a person's last name, it's like trying to symbolically eradicate their identity.

I think it's fine, and I certainly support one's right to do it. I tihnk flag toilet paper would be good too.

Not if you don't identify with your country.

I totally support it. Freedom is an idea. Not a tangible object. You can burn a flag but what it represents remains.

Your new name is Krispy Kake

Seeing the US flag burned in protest sickens me, but I support a person's right to do it. To me the flag represents freedom and "liberty and justice for all". When people are disgusted with our government, I would think they'd still appreciate those ideals. It seems to me they could find a better way to make their point. But... whatever. Burn away, just don't expect that to make me want to listen to what you have to say.

Flag toilet paper would be cool! How patriotic!

Crap or get of the pot, soldier!

If you're going to give me a new name, at least do it on the right survey!http://surveycentral.org/survey/12369.html

Freedom of speech. Who is it hurting?

Flag burning is wrong and should be against the law.

I think it's legitimate right. It's just a stupid move if the right is used - even if it's the flag of your evil nemesis.
You don't screw with others' loyalty, whomever's side you're on. It will only make those of your country turn away from the point you're trying to get across if it's your own country's flag you're defacing. And it will only make your enemy more determined in their mission.

Did I say anything about a country??? I said a flag Love.

Wait just a minute. There is no option here for "it's wrong and people shouldn't do it".

I think a lot of people are thinking about Country. Sadly not enough people are very passionate about their Country.

But think about what you are passionate about.
I can't imagine gays supporting the the burning of a gay flag, or christians supporting the burning of a christian flag, or the relative of a prisoner of war supporting the burning a P.O.W. flag.

It's not to late to change your vote.

This survey is totally bias.

If the US Flag is the symbol of freedom (I believe it is), then we should be proud to see it burned by our citizens (as I am).

We should be proud that we are free to burn our own flag. Among other things, it stands for political freedom (which can be expressed by burning our flag).
If an Iraqi burned their own flag, what would happen to them?
We're suppose to be different in the US.

I understand that line of thinking. But it's difficult for me to relate to people that our country is founded on that. It's the flag that's supposed to be the symbol of what tribulations our forefathers suffered in order to obtain freedom. (The red stripes represent the blood spilled in that cause.)
I think most of those a full generation before me (or "us") will only shake their heads at this twist on the right we're discussing. The pledge of allegiance is now at high risk of losing its stability. Those tangible things in to which we installed a "loyalty" are dissipating quickly, and I would imagine it's a painful thing to watch when that generation really put their hearts into such things.

I have to admit myself, it meant a lot to me to see those men go to effort to raise the flag in the wreckage of the WTC that day. Now, because of rights I "tolerate", I may be encouraging the sight of that same flag burning when I turn on the tv - by citizens of the same country who raised it. It's just a mixed mess.

So it could be a miniature flag dangling from a coffee cup in the office of an associate at a large corporation that manufactures computer parts saying "Jesus Loves Me" and if somebody burned it it would still irk you?

I think flag burning is wrong because the flag represents the bond of our states and the men and women that have shed their own blood and died to uphold the beliefs of our country, and to burn that flag is to disrespect the men and women that protected your right to say what you want, and to disagree with everything this country stands for. That is treason, which is punishable by death. I might not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.

I have no problem with it. Our flag kind of sucks anyway....

I think I understand your sentiments. I also understand the others' views - the "right to" argument. I just resent that we choose to protect our constitutional rights with such a horrible tool as "burning the flag".
I believe "extending of rights" or "protecting the right to" stems partly from having a government we can't trust. We profusely protect the rights to even the most atrocious acts (as I would say is described here). People hang on to them by saying it is "unconstitutional" to refuse this right - which, technically, it is "unconstitutional", saying if we give in with this, that untrustworthy government won't ever limit themselves to what else they can take.
There's a point there, but why so steady and demanding with this example? Why aren't people screaming about their inalienable, constitutional right to utter the word "God" in any damn building they please - schools, for example? Why do those who oppose triumph in that area?

Natsim!
You know, I have no less respect for someone who doesn't honor the chosen symbols of their country than I may for someone who does. It's you inside your skin there - you get to hold and express whatever opinions you choose.
But my regard for someone plummets when a person chooses to make a statement simply to disrespect someone else's principles, or seemingly so.
It's a shame you have little respect for the USA. If you had any, instead of capping on its symbol of freedom, you'd proudly be taking stitching lessons to make better of it. Or are you absolved of that prospect, simply because you're from Australia?
If so, then reread the first part of this. Jeze, I'm surprised at that comment!

It doesn't matter what the flag say little girl, I don't care if it says "Barney Rules" if it MEANS something to someone, it's not a nice thing to do.

I said "Our flag", i.e. the Australian flag ... this question wasn't asking specifically about the American flag. Yours isn't the only flag that gets burned in protests you know.

My apologies. I thought you were a citizen of the United States.
I don't see how that changes my opinion any though. Let's say we were discussing the flag of the world, for the sake of argument. I'm still surprised at the lack of consideration you might have (I'm open to the notion that I've misinterpreted) for your fellow flag-wavers.
Australia happens to be one of the many nations who presented that flag via memorials for the victims at the WTC last year. It happens to have gained meaning for me by now.

I think that if people are angry at their government, or the government of another country, that they should be allowed to symbolise that anger by burning that country's flag.
I don't understand why you find this to be a lack of consideration for others... can you explain more?

Quoting my only point:
"...I have no less respect for someone who doesn't honor the chosen symbols of their country than I may for someone who does. It's you inside your skin there - you get to hold and express whatever opinions you choose.
But my regard for someone plummets when a person chooses to make a statement simply to disrespect someone else's principles, or seemingly so."

Quoting my official position on this issue, from earlier:
"I think it's legitimate right. It's just a stupid move if the right is used - even if it's the flag of your evil nemesis.
You don't screw with others' loyalty, whomever's side you're on."

The latter discounts your assertion - your interpretation - of my position...
Quoting your last statement: "...that they should be allowed to symbolise that anger by burning that country's flag.
I don't understand why you find this to be a lack of consideration for others..."

Point: Line your birdcage with the Australian flag for all I care. And your opinion is probably respected by granting you that right. But, out of respect for the other Australians (or Americans, or Plutonions) who feel loyal to it, saying "you don't care, it sucks anyway" is 'inconsiderate' to those you are obviously assuming wants to hear what you've got to say.

I don't know why you think I make comments only because I'm looking for a reaction. I have only been saying what I think, just responding to a survey, isn't that the point of this website?
I also know that the only other Australians here are kaleb and harekrishnadasa, and I know they are not keen flag-loyalists, and I know that if they were, that we would have a respectful conversation about the merits and disadvantages of our flag; Australians generally are far less loyal to our flag than Americans are. We love our country and many of us dislike our flag - we're often discussing whether we should change it. Within the context of Australia, my opinion is not unusual.

*thinking* What if the flag says "Flag burning is bad"? Is it still bad to burn it?

I think it's wrong and spits on the graves of the brave men and women who have fought for the freedoms we hold dear in the USA.
That said, I also support the person's right and freedom to be a complete idiot and burn the flag even though it does show a lack of appreciation for that freedom.

As I feel I am simply stating my view. But, since I've obviously offended you, I will sincerely apologize. It wasn't my intent along that entire way.
I remember in Qual-Land with this, I predicted the following (chop&glue):
Note: Although this survey itself is in no way offensive, I imagine the conversations it will provoke will certainly bring it to that status soon enough.
With that foresight, I should make the call that I'm the one who allowed it to happen between us, so I do apologize, and will consider that I have simply twisted your statements around to be interpreted as offensive.
[Post Note: Is it any wonder that BrianW created this? (Not a criticism by any means, just an observation.) He does like the controversy, doesn't he?]

I'm "Proud to be an American" and all........but an object is what you make of it. Anyone can go out and buy a flag...yeah it represents our country and independence and even if it's on fire it won't change that. That's just my opinion. Why would anyone wanna burn a flag anyways?!?!

If you were to save one item from the doom of a fire (a survey of mine in Qual-Land right now), would it have an essential value, a monetary value or a sentimental one?
Point is, yes, people place sentiments to objects. I'm not going to vote that we have the constitutional right to spit at someone's kept urn when I see it. There's a value to it. To me, it's a shame that since that value doesn't contain some .9999 percent silver when it's made, the value isn't deemed worthy of one's rights to respect it.

Does it mean a lot to some one, will it hurt someone's feelings if you burn it?

*and all eyes - each with a set of raised eyebrows - travel calmly over to Confetti*

This flag belongs to 100; it means a lot to 50 people and exactly 50 other people despise it. What should happen then?

Thanks. I'm not offended, just surprised at the strength of your reaction! I should have remembered how much the attitude toward flags is different between the USA and Australia.
(and I agree that BrianW tends to create controversial surveys!)

I think the population of SC might be as predictable as BrianW though, haha! Either that, or I just lived into my own prophecy.

I do have to wonder why we Americans put more into the flag the Australians. History? Tradition? A clench to idols?
I guess to some it's a game of soccer (futball), and to others it's a woven banner. In any case, "to each..." I suppose.

In your example here, is it unlawful for someone to have something "mean" something to them? Or, does it somehow make more sense to have it so the other 50 have the right to destroy it?
3d grade history teacher: "Your rights end where another's begins."

I think part of it is that in America you swear an oath of allegiance to your flag. We don't have anything like that. But it's more than that, because Australians are far less patriotic than Americans in a whole range of ways. The only time we get patriotic is when an AUSTRALIAN WINS WIMBLEDON!!!

And your flag is wholly American; I think you have a better sense of owning your flag. Ours is still seen by many as a hang-over from colonialism. The Southern Cross is beautiful, but the Union Jack? I mean, Canada still has the British Monarchy, but they don't have the Union Jack on their flag!

No, it's lawful to have something mean to them, but it's also lawful to have something be despised by them.

This is interesting to me, but if it starts to offend, let me know, and we should walk away. (It's really a sensitive subject.)
So, step away from Earth for a second. Slate is wiped clean. You have this new planet, and you have been assigned to manage it. The 6 billion people being placed on the planet are a tempestuous bunch.
Given all those factors, you are handed your first task to provide ruling. In a much simpler (mind you) set up, 3 billion of these people maintain a grave homage to their own symbol (the Rubber Duckie) - they feel it represents all that is good in them. The other 3 billion don't care for any symbol, but they are easily able to get their hands on the other 3 billions' symbol.
You get to lay the law now. Knowing what the Duckie represents, and knowing these are moody bunches dealing with other moody bunches, with many conflicts between them all, which rule do you find sensible to have them follow?
1) Allow the symbol to mean what the people wish, while not allowing the others to disrespect that by publicly defacing it
2) Allow the symbol to mean what the people wish, while allowing the others to disrespect that by publicly defacing it

If number two is your law, what sort of expressions are you going to receive from the 3 billion people who are now dealing with the other half coming at their symbol with 3 billion bic lighters?

Yeah, I don't think a single British person would ever be offended if the Aussie Prime Minister decided to remove the Union Jack in the corner of the flag.

Even we're a little confused as to why its still there.

[to all and sundry]

I don't think anyone is saying that there are people who aren't going to be offended or hurt if someone burns their flag - be it country, gay pride, or religion, or whatever. People feel anger and want to express it. People feel anger if someone expresses anger at them and their beliefs. But this is not disneyland y'know.

So someone doesn't love your cause or country as much as you do. Then tell em to f**k off. By making it illegal you are saying that it would hurt if someone burnt your flag. But is it not better to say - "Hey, whatever! We're still here and doing our thing!"

I support flag burning. I think that it helps to identify the butt-holes who can't think of a more productive way to protest.

My understanding is that "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950's (after WWII). Stability? My impression is that the McCarthy era politicians misstepped by adding that phrase, and we're just restoring it to it's proper form.
I think it's important for us not to lose site of the ideals that our country was founded on. Nationalism (jingoism) can cloud the issues. If we are to be free, we must allow for people to not all agree.

Oh and... "the map is not the territory". Don't mistake the flag for the country. It's just a symbol, a painted piece of cloth. The values and spirit of the citizens of the country are what really matters.

First I would ask the Anti-Duckies what their preferred bath toy was so that they could have a symbol they liked.

Well?

The 'principles' I'm talking about - maybe it should be called a philosophy - is that one person's rights should end where another's begins.
Going back to the US again - my own take on this right...I do travel back to our forefathers, and I look at their purport in the systems they built.
Staying with just the Preamble to the US Constitution for the sake of brevity, it's stated:
1) in order to form a more perfect union [I think this is failed by maintaining the right to burn that union's symbol of freedom]
2) establish justice [Only compromised by the right to burn flags]
3) insure domestic tranquility [Certainly failed by...]
4) provide for the common defense [n/a]
5) promote the general welfare [Certainly failed by...]
6) and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity [Some claims this is succeeded by the right to burn our flag]

I think these foundations are given concession when we to a child, we instill what the US flag represents (specifically US), then maintain a right for someone to deface that symbol. Why is it still a Federal offense to deface the US dollar bill? [Title 18, Section 333 of Federal Laws] Why are their countless court cases that tend to "defamation of character", "libel"? There is harm committed against an image. The argument to that exists right there on our court dockets.

Oh! That wasn't rhetorical?
Ok, here's the anti-Duckies' response: "No thanks, have no regard for symbols. We just like our Bic lighters."
(I hope you're not going to make it a law that everyone have a symbol of some sort, just so everyone's equally vulnerable to the mutilation of it. If so, you can't rule my world, sorry.)

That's good to know... I sometimes wonder if New Zealand will be first to drop the Union Jack from their flag, but I think they like the monarchy more than we do. Who knows? This week is nice, because all the flagpoles are waving both the Australian flag and the Aboriginal flag, since it's National Aboriginal and Islander week.

All right.

Burn 'em! Burn 'em all!
(haha)

...

Okie dokie then...has anyone seen my keys? I gotta run...

How does someone else burning a flag infringe on anyone else's right. It's essentially a peaceable form of protest.
Your preamble points fall pretty flat for me...
The first amendment to the US Constitution protects our freedom of speech. Burning a flag is a form of speech (generally protest). Though, freedom on speech was not in the original US Constitution, I do feel it's a critical element of the US ideals of a free people.
I don't understand why defacing money would be a crime, it seems like a silly law to me, unenforceable too. But, maybe there's some economic basis for it. Libel/slander/defamation seems very different to me. Those are real people, not a symbol.
Our flag, that symbol, represents among other things, the freedoms our country stand for. The freedoms we've built our nation on and fought for. If we force people not to burn it, we throw that all away.

NthenSome!
I can't believe you could be so offensive when there are people here who might love their flag!

(How did I figure you might say that? heh heh)

You ask: How does someone else burning a flag infringe on anyone else's right? It's essentially a peaceable form of protest.
Parading naked should a peaceable form of protest. Yet the words "indecent" and "offensive" are strong enough in the description of this act to maintain a law against it.
My point is that, while people can patriotically defend the right to burn the flag in the name of the "freedoms we've built our nation on and fought for", those very same people realize that those 'freedoms' need to end somewhere...simply, in the name of "indecency" or "offensiveness".
As I said earlier, as the constitution is written, I believe it's a given right. It's just a shame we choose to interpret that 'forbidden line' to be drawn after this off-putting act, rather than before it as we conveniently choose do so many other things.

[Sidebar: Did you hear of how the Supreme Court ruled that defacing a photo of a child in a way so that the child appears to be suffering from horrible sexual acts was passed as a constitutional right?! Ugh. I'm beginning to feel like LH. Maybe 37 is "the generation before me" after all. haha!]

I do agree that our freedoms are a fragile thing and that testing them often breaks them. Pornography is a good example. We should allow it as it's part of freedom, but eventually the pornographers start to rub it in our faces and it's hard not to restrict that freedom.
I agree with that supreme court decision as well. Really, I think the supreme court has been doing fairly well (despite having some scary conservative types on it).

To add to your rubber ducky example, try looking at it this way. The non-rubber duckies initially didn't really have any feelings about rubber duckies one way or the other. They were optimistic about the potential for both groups to exist peaceably together. But then they noticed that the rubber ducky-ites started doing things the non-rubber ducky-ites didn't like, things that sometimes directly, adversely affected the non-ducky-ites. Rather than engage in outright aggression against the ducky-ites, they seize on the obvious symbol and burn it in protest, essentially a burning in effigy. It's symbolic, just like the duck is symbolic.

This is an extreme example, but what if a Jew living in Germany in 1940 had wanted to burn a Nazi flag in protest?

Actually, one of the first things Hitler did to whip people up into a blind frenzy of ugly nationalism was make a HUGE stink about desecration of the German flag in the countries that were later invaded. A little known fact. Also, a flag was flown on every single corner. I see pictures of street corners in post-9/11 U.S.A. and I'm starting to see similar patterns of flag deployment. I'd hate to see the rather benign Stars and Stripes become a symbol of opression and- oh wait, too late.

Well, your example brings in a new philosophy, but I'll respond to it.
As I said when I originally responded to this question: As a right, I don't think it's ever a wise move to replicate (if necessary) a prized possession - even one of your enemy's - and deface it in public in order to make a point. It can only anger the other party. "Peaceable" (in the broader sense of the word) can never result from such an action.
Relate it to a child being given the household right to burn a copied photo of their parents as their own form of protest. What is that going to accomplish? Peace? I think, rather than bringing things to the table for resolve, it might prompt a mom and dad to send that kid to their room. Result: Frowning, angry parents in a room on one far end of the house, and one angry (smirking) child in another distant room.
I see no logic in the action itself, even in your example.

Maybe pissing the other people off is the point. It's a form of protest, after all. And it's still non-violent.

Which brings me back to...
Parading naked is a non-violent form of protest. Yet the words "indecent" and "offensive" are strong enough in the description of this act to maintain a law against it.
My point is that, while people can patriotically defend the right to burn the flag in the name of the "freedoms we've built our nation on and fought for", those very same people realize that those 'freedoms' need to end somewhere...simply, in the name of "indecency" or "offensiveness".
As I said earlier, as the constitution is written, I believe it's a given right. It's just a shame we choose to interpret that 'forbidden line' to be drawn after this off-putting act, rather than before it as we conveniently choose do so many other things.
(chop&glue from my post above)

I guess I just don't have that much of a problem with it. It's just a symbol. Better to burn a flag than bomb a building.

You've got an indisputable point there! I may be reluctant to change with the times, but I still reserve a spot for some traditional views. Maybe tradition is all together leaving.

There are always traditions and there are always traditional people. The traditions themselves just change sometimes, and traditional people always kick up a fuss about it, but that never stops things from changing.

There's even a tradition of flag-burning!

Natsim! I can't believe you would --
*Natsim hits NthenSome squarely in the head with a cherry snowcone, saying, "Lighten up, dorko."*
Ok. Ow.
*looks around for the bigger pieces of snowcone remains...*

Hey, didn't I do a survey like this a while back ago.

You did do a survey like this. But we sowed it into a nice banner, called it "World Peace" and then burned it.

(Man, I feel like I'm following you around. Are we the only members signed on at the moment? Hold on, let me run ahead of you a second.)

I don't see any problem with it as long as it's done safely and doesn't result in huge fires sweeping across cities or anything like that.....It's just a piece of cloth.

I was just catching up yesterday. A weeks worth of unanswered surveys.

I'd been "followed" by other people before.

heh heh heh!

I totally am all for and actually i did it once, to prove a point. I'm not going to get into detail about why i did it. but it's a freedom that shouldn't be taken away. if they took that away other things would be next. we're not fudging communist.