Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Upside Down Flag turns Free Speech Upside Down

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted July 12, 2006.


How to fly the American flag if you want to live in Iowa.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Matthew Rothschild

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Scott Roe was practicing with his band, "Corruption of Blood," on July 3 at his home in Ottumwa, Iowa. The police came and said he was violating a new city noise ordinance. So that was the end of the practice session.

Roe wasn't happy about it, so he staged a protest the next day. He planted an upside down flag in his front yard and had a cutout of a police officer standing in front of it. The band's name was written in block letters across the flag.

It didn't take long for Officer Mark Milligan and Sergeant Chris Logan of the Ottumwa Police Department to show up.

A neighbor had evidently complained about the upside down flag in the yard.

The officers warned Roe that he'd be arrested if he didn't take the flag down.

He refused, asserting his First Amendment rights.

Whereupon he was arrested and charge with violating Iowa's flag desecration statute, Chapter 718A.

All of this according to the lawsuit that Roe has filed against Milligan and Logan and the Ottumwa Police Department.

Roe "faces 30 days in jail and a $500 fine," the Des Moines Register reports.

"No trial date has been set yet," says Randall Wilson of the ACLU of Iowa, who is representing Roe.

Roe's suit says the Iowa statute dates back to 1900 and is an "overly broad restriction of speech that is protected under the First Amendment."

Chapter 718A is a whopper. It reads: "Any person who in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed, any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature, upon any flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or upon any flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state, or shall expose or cause to be exposed to public view, any such flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or any such flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state, upon which shall have been printed, painted, or otherwise placed, or to which shall be attached, appended, affixed, or annexed, any word, figure, mark, picture, design, or drawing, or any advertisement of any nature, or who shall expose to public view, manufacture, sell, expose for sale, give away, or have in possession for sale, or to give away, or for use for any purpose any article or substance, being an article of merchandise or a receptacle of merchandise or article or thing for carrying or transporting merchandise, upon which shall have been printed, painted, attached or otherwise placed, a representation of any such flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or any such flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state, to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark, or distinguish the article or substance on which so placed, or who shall publicly mutilate, deface, defile or defy, trample upon, cast contempt upon, satirize, deride or burlesque, either by words or act, such flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state, or who shall, for any purpose, place such flag, standard, color, ensign, shield, or other insignia of the United States, or flag, ensign, great seal, or other insignia of this state, upon the ground or where the same may be trod upon, shall be deemed guilty of a simple misdemeanor."

Wilson, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa, elaborates on the basis for the suit.

"The statute under which Mr. Roe is being prosecuted," Wilson tells me, "bans just about everything we do with flags these days: flag patches on clothing, bumper stickers, use in advertisements, and so forth. Amid all of this 'flag speech,' Mr. Roe's display was singled out for prosecution simply because he chose to criticize the police and how laws are enforced in his community. That's how it always goes: Flag desecration prosecutions are only used for political persecution.

Either this statute goes or the right to free speech goes. The two cannot peacefully coexist."

Roe does not have a listed phone number, and he did not contact me after I relayed my request through Wilson.

I spoke with the Ottumwa Police Department and was told that Milligan and Logan would not comment.

Ottumwa City Attorney Tom Kintigh says, "We've consulted our insurance company, and I don't know if they've assigned an attorney to it yet. We're waiting to hear back from them."

In his lawsuit, Roe is seeking the dropping of charges against him, a declaration that Iowa's flag desecration statute Chapter 718A is unconstitutional, and "an award of nominal and punitive damages from the Defendants in compensation for the deprivation of his constitutional rights."

Digg!

Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Just Ban the Flag,
Posted by: Lefty Fukwitz on Jul 12, 2006 1:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Either this statute goes or the right to free speech goes. The two cannot peacefully coexist."

~ ACLU Fukwitz

I'd like to see the good people of Iowa tar and feather that ACLU hack who is poking his nose into their business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just Ban the Flag, Posted by: nickptar
» In full agreement Posted by: sirossisofliver
» RE: Just Ban the Flag, Posted by: Paul D
» RE: Just Ban the Flag, Posted by: Jean Jearman
» RE: Just Ban the Flag, Posted by: terryton
» RE: Just Ban the Flag, Posted by: Ted Wing Blue
Bill of Rights: Void where prohibted by law
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Jul 13, 2006 2:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pity the power elite is too stupid to educate about the fact that the Bill of Rights is a metalaw to which statutes and ordinances must be subordinate.

As for those who sneer at the ACLU, the Bill of Rights and keeping government bullies in their place is their business. And in cases such as this one they are invited to become involved by the private citizen whose rights are being shit on by power elite.

Morever, the ACLU is non-partisan. They'll take any case involving civil liberties violations, including representing those groups who are commonly the violators.

And aside from all this, you might want to ask yourselves: in what way does this state law not violate the Supreme Court ruling in Texas v. Johnson, which ruling upholds flag burning as core political speech. That too, is the law of the land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's no use. Posted by: Paul D
Somebody needs to look at the Flag Code
Posted by: ro5b on Jul 13, 2006 4:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ยง 176. (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

The guy wasn't desecrating the flag. He was signaling distress.

(Given the state of things in this country, I think ALL flags should be flying upside down.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» FLAG UPSIDE DOWN = INTERNATIONAL DISTRESS Posted by: rockythesquirrel
Proud Liberal
Posted by: Proud Liberal on Jul 13, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Ottumwa police are going to arrest people for desecrating the flag, then they should arrest George Bush if he signs American flags there for his admirers, as he often does in his perpetual campaigning. I rarely read of desecration incidents --and never of burning incidents themselves-- but Bush autographs flags all the time. He's the biggest desecrator of them all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Proud Liberal Posted by: Paul D
» RE: Proud Liberal Posted by: tonysc
» RE: Proud Liberal Posted by: Gisele
» It a Cowardly New World Posted by: LMNOP
I can think of a few much more appropriate words...
Posted by: xbj on Jul 13, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can think of a few much more appropriate words to scrawl across an upside-down American flag than a band's name, and here's hoping, that together with black spray paint, this becomes a new fad to sweep the nation from coast to coast.

When a flag becomes a universally hated symbol of fascism, killing, death, murder, torture, rape of children, and oppression by 98% of the worlds' population, it's just not worth protecting anymore.

Let alone fighting and dying for.

Unless you're completely out of your mind.

No, the problem lies elsewhere. Not in a completely meangingless piece of cloth raped and devoid of all truth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

waterman
Posted by: happybear on Jul 13, 2006 8:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neil Peart, a noted Canadien lyricist, wrote "Better the Pride that Resides in a Citizen of the World, than the Pride that Divides when a Colourful Rag is Unfurled."
A flag deserves no more reverence than a terry-cloth towel. Your pride in country is personal and within your character. If it is shaken when a symbol is misused or damaged, it is a very shallow pride, indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It takes a real imbecile..........
Posted by: tap17x on Jul 13, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..........to confuse a symbol, in this case the US flag, with reality, which is what the flag used to stand for until Bushit and his lying, corrupt, hypocritical stooges got hold of the U.S. government. Now that they have trashed the myth of American exceptionalism, the flag doesn't stand for much of anything.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Symbol minded Posted by: LMNOP
LONG MAY IT WAVE - RIGHT SIDE UP ONLY!
Posted by: chanceny on Jul 13, 2006 1:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand all the fuss. If these clowns want their literal biblical interpertation of the ten commandments to become law of the land, including the stoning to death of adulterors and abortionists and homosexuals and liberals and the Clintons, why would rationality overcome them when they see such flag desecration? It all just goes hand in hand when you're dealing with a mindset that preaches 'thou shall not kill' and has barbeques using the flames from ignited crosses to make a better burger at their flag day celebratory parties.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm Loving It
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jul 13, 2006 2:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, the statute is more than a little overwrought and has probably been lying around on the books unnoticed and unenforced for a very long time.

Now, the city of Ottomwa and the State of Iowa have got themselves a tiger by the tail. They should have let this sleeping dog lie. But NOOOOOO ... someone decided to thow a little weight around ... call the cops -- give the Commie next door a hard time

Now the legal bills are going to be mounting up -- big time!

And I love it!

This kind of case is exactly the reason people like me pay dues to the ACLU. No individual has the resources to 'fight city hall' in this situation .. but the ACLU can, and likely will, persue the case for as long and as far as it needs to go -- price is no object.

Now, we also all know that if the case ever gets to an Appellate Court, which recongnizes the US Consitition, the Statute is dead and the town and State have paid a fortune in taxpayers money just to get their noses put out of joint.

Laws of this kind have had their day in court any number of times in the '60s and 70s .. and 'quaintness factor' aside -- the First Amendment has always trumped outraged patriotic idolotry. That's why the Right Wing Panders are brought their poor sorry sad (and defeated) "Flag Desecration Amendment" to the Senate.

Kick hick butt, ACLU!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm Loving It
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jul 13, 2006 2:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, the statute is more than a little overwrought and has probably been lying around on the books unnoticed and unenforced for a very long time.

Now, the city of Ottomwa and the State of Iowa have got themselves a tiger by the tail. They should have let this sleeping dog lie. But NOOOOOO ... someone decided to thow a little weight around ... call the cops -- give the Commie next door a hard time

Now the legal bills are going to be mounting up -- big time!

And I love it!

This kind of case is exactly the reason people like me pay dues to the ACLU. No individual has the resources to 'fight city hall' in this situation .. but the ACLU can, and likely will, persue the case for as long and as far as it needs to go -- price is no object.

Now, we also all know that if the case ever gets to an Appellate Court, which recongnizes the US Consitition, the Statute is dead and the town and State have paid a fortune in taxpayers money just to get their noses put out of joint.

Laws of this kind have had their day in court any number of times in the '60s and 70s .. and 'quaintness factor' aside -- the First Amendment has always trumped outraged patriotic idolotry. That's why the Right Wing Panders are brought their poor sorry sad (and defeated) "Flag Desecration Amendment" to the Senate.

Kick hick butt, ACLU!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The band screwed up
Posted by: leftoverbacon on Jul 13, 2006 5:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can totaly accept flying the flag upside down, but "The band's name was written in block letters across the flag."

That's where the guys stepped over the line. They could have put a second flag below the American Flag w/ their band name.

If you love this country, respect the flag. If you don't like this country, burn the flag. Flying a flag upside down is a respectful way of showing your distress for what this country is doing.

Yes, this country is in distress, but writing on the flag, using it in advertising, etc. are all inappropriate uses. If you really want to deface a flag, burn it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The band screwed up Posted by: jcutler9
» RE: The band screwed up Posted by: billfaster
» RE: The band screwed up Posted by: RON_KING
Now here is an amendement Democrats should push for !
Posted by: poirot on Jul 13, 2006 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why just restrict an amendement to burning only, let's go all the way and have the Democrats propose this 1900 law as their proposed amendement to the Constitution. If you are serious about protecting a symbol then this is exactly the extent you would have to go: no flag, or flag likeness on tee shirts bumper stickers patches, commercials, lapel pins, on cars , ads, coffee mugs etc.. you name it.
Maybe it would show how stupid this whole amendement issue is, but then again maybe not, considering what those officers did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flag burning appeals to nobody; it only galvanizes your opposition
Posted by: LMNOP on Jul 13, 2006 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The more unappealing this country becomes, the less interest I have in its symbols. I am now to the point where I don't like to see American flags anymore, especially in patriotic displays such as on a lapel, or on an automobile. But that doesn't make me want to burn one. It makes me want to avoid seeing them.

For me, the symbol no longer stands for the America of my childhood. It stands for corporatocracy, a tragic political coup, demagoguery and a population of mindless, lemming-like zombies. It's not something that makes me feel good or proud any more. That was not by choice.

Likewise with Uncle Sam, bald eagles and Lady Liberty in the harbor, all associated with America and American patriotism, all tainted by the developments of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

But falling out of love with America is like falling out of love with a person. You might want to burn your former lover's picture when you are fighting to disentangle. But after a little time to adjust, you don't feel that way anymore. You just don't care. And if you run into an old picture then, you don't throw darts at it or burn it or draw a moustache and horns on it. You just don't want it around anymore.

Did you know that the SWASTIKA was a benign symbol before the Nazi's adopted it? Does knowing that diminish from the Nazi's tainting of the icon? Not enough not to still be a repulsed and a little alarmed by it. Likewise with the flag and other symbols of Americana. They all bear the unmistakable stench of the neocon masters and their ditto headed minions.

None of this makes me want to burn a flag or kill an eagle. Even less so now that you would surely end up on the conservative radar and be subjected to Swift boating and the right's terrorist tactics of publishing an target's personal data on Internet sites that attract vengeful, violent uberpatriots,

Isn't it paradoxical that a person would want to protect a flag that could be burned legally than one standing for an oppressive state that forbid it.

It's also paradoxical that burning American flags causes no one to start hating America or start burning flags of his own. Flag burning just polarizes everyone else toward patriotism for that flag.

Why would you want to prevent that with a law that protesters might respect when you can show them on Fox News that night burning a flag? It's a poor strategy or tactic (I still don't really understand the difference between those two, but military people do and make the distinction).

Remember the Iranians burning US flags in the late seventies? What could unify their opposition more? Why would you want to forbid your enemies from doing that for you? Didn't the pro-military right benefit from Vietnam era war protestors burning flags?

Perhaps all of this saber rattling about prohibiting flag burning should be viewed like the anti-choice movement: if they ever got what they wanted (legal proscription of abortion and flag burning), the would lose a valuable wedge issue for the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is why some people hate cops
Posted by: YogiBear on Jul 18, 2006 9:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Because they use the force of the law for their own petty gain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jmas
Posted by: jmas on Jul 22, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is more to this story that meets the eye. The police answered the complaint call by driving up in Scott's yard like they were making a drug bust and then had to call multiple city lawyers to find a law to charge him with. How many police men does it take to answer a nuisence call? Not only were his rights violated that day but the day before as well. The "so called noise ordinence" that does'nt allow a private indvidual to practice music in his own home during the daytime needs to be looked at too. Someone really needs to look at the whole picture. He was in Distress. And Scott happens to be a vetern too. He is not Anti-American, He actually is using the rights that many have fought to keep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not guilty
Posted by: thebestroe on Dec 14, 2006 11:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My name is scott roe. Recently I was put on trial for the crime of desecration of the U.S. flag. Three times this case could have been dropped and I would have let this whole affair fade into obscurity. This not being the way events unfolded, I had to defend myself and my views to not only the judicial system, the press, and the community as a whole.
I was found not guilty at trial, but I feel this decision was made with great hesitancy on the part of the magistrate and a certain amount of contempt that he had to perform his duties and render a not giulty verdict.
I would like tochallenge the media to show the same amount of zeal in reporting the outcome of the trial as they did in making me out to be a seditious anti-american.
Is the press up to the challenge?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]