comments_image -

Blog/counterblog: Hillary & flag-burning

Smart politics or Republican Lite?
December 6, 2005  |  
 
Advertisement
 

Remember the quaint old days when flag-burning was so outrageous as a rights violation liberals would quiver with indignation? A Bush, a Patriot Act, and some enemy combatants later, outrage over criminalizing flag-burning feels like outrage at the exposure of a bare knee in a Hollywood movie.

I'm sort of kidding of course. Banning flag-burning is an important first amendment issue. It's just, you know, expectations have shifted.

The news that Hillary Clinton is signing on to legislation that "outlaws a protester intimidating any person by burning the flag, lighting someone else's flag, or desecrating the flag on federal property."

Matt Stoller opposes her stance while conceding that "[It's] not the biggest deal in the world, just a bit of of silly pandering."

But he makes a good point about Clinton's framing of the issue:

"The deeply disturbing piece here is the awful comparison of flag burning to cross burning. Cross burning is well-understood as a sign of terrorism. It was used to suppress blacks organizing themselves in both the South and the North from the post-Civil War era until the late 1960s. It was a sign of intimidation, of terrorism, or impending hate crimes. It was often a death threat. Flag burning has usually been the province of hippies and countercultural movements, and these have been relatively benign. They are certainly not equivalent in any way shape or form to the KKK or the legacy of slavery and segregation that cross burning represents."
The Carpetbagger argues that what's actually going on here is a compromise. While the act is being criminalized, it's not the constitutional amendment that conservative Republicans are pushing for. He writes:
"First, it's federal legislation, not a constitutional amendment. Second, I'm fine with protecting others' flags, since destruction of private property is illegal anyway. I'm not quite sure how they'd enforce flag damage that "promotes violence," but since this whole mess is about crass political exploitation anyway, I'm happy to let Judiciary Committee lawyers hash it out."
What's more, Senate Republicans don't like the bill, so it's basically an easy thing for Senate Dems to sign onto with impunity. It may be cynical, but it's hard to blame a Dem planning a presidential run for pursuing this approach.
(MyDD / Carpetbagger)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Radioactive Bluefin Tuna Contaminated by Fukishima Reach US Shores

By Agence France-Presse

 
 
Thousands Protest Anti-Gay Pastor In North Carolina

By Annie-Rose Strasser | Think Progress

 
 
Bad Company for Mitt: Trump, Newt, and Now Meg Whitman

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly

 
 
Battle of the Dems: Blue Dog Spends $1.25 Mil of Own Dough Trying to Defeat Progressive in CA Congressional Primary

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Electoral Map Big Picture: If We Win This One, the GOP Fever Might Break

By BooMan | Booman Tribune

 
 
Pilot Kicks Sexist Passenger Off Her Plane

By Melissa Van Gelder | Ms. Magazine Blog

 
 
Koch Footing Bill for "Grassroots": Anti-Gov't Folks Have Billionaires Paying for Every Need

By Digby | Hullabaloo

 
 
Republican NLRB Member Accused of Leaks to Romney Campaign Resigns

By Laura Clawson | Daily Kos Labor

 
 
Record 45% of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Have Filed for Disability

By Muriel Kane | Raw Story

 
 
President Obama's Memorial Day Address: "Honoring Those Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]