Police say teens burned Bloomington rainbow flag

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | October 14, 2005

[Petruchio]

Police say teens burned Bloomington rainbow flag

October 14, 2005

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Two teenagers stole and burned a rainbow-colored American flag representing gays and lesbians that was displayed outside a store, police said.

The 17-year-old boys took the flag from outside of David Wade's culinary supply store, called Inner Chef, according to Bloomington police. Wade said the flag, called the ''New Glory,'' shows that all Americans are welcome at his business.

A witness saw the boys take the flag and took a picture of their license plate with a cell phone camera. Police later tracked the plate and questioned the boys, who said they burned the flag because they felt it was ''unpatriotic,'' police reports said.

The boys were referred to juvenile court on preliminary charges of theft.

''I just wish they would've come in and talked to me about it,'' Wade said. ''I didn't know if it was a prank, an American flag issue or a gay issue. Any of them could've just come inside and had a conversation about it.''

Bloomington's Safe and Civil City Director Beverly Calender-Anderson said if there is a suspicion that the flag burning was a hate crime, the incident would get reported to the Human Rights Commission.

[MineralMan]

"If that means occasional attention getting misdemeanors, then so be it. The battle is engaged.

If you are not on one side in this fight, you are on the other. Too many are giving aid and comfort to the forces of evil under the guise of Constitutional libertarianism."

---

Ah, that pesky Constitution, huh? If only you could get rid of the parts you don't like, you could have things run the way you want. Teenaged boys could burn rainbow flags with impunity. Maybe they could even burn the guy's store down, while they're at it.

No thanks! I'll hang on to the Constitution I enlisted to defend. I am not the enemy.

[Gone GF]

"Yeah. This is America. The store owner should be free to display the gay flag if he wants -- just as he's free to display the Confederate Flag or the Nazi Swastika Flag.

Right?"

Without question.

[Gone GF]

I haven't even gone through the whole thread but I'm just appalled at the people here who think these kids deserve medals. If they had bought the flag and then burned it, fine. Then you would have had a legitimate comparison with American flag burners. But these kids stole property and destroyed it.

As for the flag being unpatriotic or inappropriate, if it was indeed a rainbow-colored American flag, I agree. Of course I also hate it when I see the flag being used commericially in other inappropriate ways. But the answer isn't to steal and burn it.

[MineralMan]

Wait 'til you get near the end of the thread. It gets worse.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

I am not the enemy, either. I'm just saying that I applaud the spirit and courage with which these kids stood up for what they believe in. Yes, it was a misdemeanor. They will face the consequences, as they should.

But I wish they had gotten away with it....;^)

[MineralMan]

"I'm just saying that I applaud the spirit and courage with which these kids stood up for what they believe in. "

---

Yes, I know you do. Pity that what they believe in isn't our Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and of religion.

Pity that they believe that it's OK for them to steal and burn the possessions of those they disagree with.

Pity that they believe that their particular point of view overrides the point of view of other American Citizens.

I read your small print.

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

Just fyi, I'm not normally a spammer, but there is a rather long and impassioned history regarding flag desecration in this country--see below. This may help place this thread into a clearer context. Many people still feel impassioned enough to express their opinion in this greatest nation on God's green earth....

Flag Desecration Chronology

1777\Approval of Flag Design -- The Continental Congress approved the stars and stripes design for the new American flag on June 14, 1777 (Flag Day) in order to designate and protect U.S. ships at sea. However, the flag did not become a widely used or generally popular symbol until after the Civil War.

1897\Adoption of State Flag Desecration Statutes -- By the late 1800's an organized flag protection movement was born in reaction to perceived commercial and political misuse of the flag. After supporters failed to obtain federal legislation, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota became the first States to adopt flag desecration statutes. By 1932, all of the States had adopted flag desecration laws.

In general, these State laws outlawed: (i) placing any kind of marking on the flag, whether for commercial, political, or other purposes; (ii) using the flag in any form of advertising; and (iii) publicly mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, defying or casting contempt, either by words or by act, upon the flag. Under the model flag desecration law, the term "flag" was defined to include any flag, standard, ensign, or color, or any representation of such made of any substance whatsoever and of any size that evidently purported to be said flag or a picture or representation thereof, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and stripes in any number, or by which the person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag of the U.S.

1907\Halter v. Nebraska (205 U.S. 34) -- The Supreme Court held that although the flag was a federal creation, the States' had the authority to promulgate flag desecration laws under their general police power to safeguard public safety and welfare.

Halter involved a conviction of two businessmen selling "Stars and Stripes" brand beer with representations of the U.S. flag affixed to the labels. The defendants did not raise any First Amendment claim.

1931\Stromberg v. California (283 U.S. 359) -- The Supreme Court found that a State statute prohibiting the display of a "red flag" as a sign of opposition to organized government unconstitutionally infringed on the defendant's First Amendment rights. Stromberg represented the Court's first declaration that "symbolic speech" was protected by the First Amendment.

1942\Federal Flag Code (36 U.S.C. 171 et seq.) -- On June 22, 1942, President Roosevelt approved the Federal Flag Code, providing for uniform guidelines for the display and respect shown to the flag. The Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include any enforcement provisions, rather it functions simply as a guide for voluntary civilian compliance.

1943\West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624) -- The Supreme Court held that public school children could not be compelled to salute the U.S. flag. In a now famous passage, Justice Jackson highlighted the importance of freedom of expression under the First Amendment:

Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion.

1968\Adoption of Federal Flag Desecration Law (18 U.S.C. 700 et seq.) -- Congress approved the first federal flag desecration law in the wake of a highly publicized Central Park flag burning incident in protest of the Vietnam War. The federal law made it illegal to "knowingly" cast "contempt" upon "any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it." The law defined flag in an expansive manner similar to most States.

1969\Street v. New York (394 U.S. 576) -- The Supreme Court held that New York could not convict a person based on his verbal remarks disparaging the flag. Street was arrested after he learned of the shooting of civil rights leader James Meredith and reacted by burning his own flag and exclaiming to a small crowd that if the government could allow Meredith to be killed, "we don't need no damn flag." The Court avoided deciding whether flag burning was protected by the First Amendment, and instead overturned the conviction based on Street's oral remarks. In Street, the Court found there was not a sufficient governmental interest to warrant regulating verbal criticism of the flag.

1972\Smith v. Goguen (415 U.S. 94) -- The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law making it a crime to publicly treat the flag of the United States with "contempt." The Massachusetts statute was held to be unconstitutionally "void for vagueness."

1974\Spence v. Washington (418 U.S. 405) -- The Supreme Court held that the State of Washington could not convict a person for attaching removable tape in the form of a peace sign to a flag. The defendant had attached the tape to his flag and draped it outside of his window in protest of the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State killings. The Court again found under the First Amendment there was not a sufficient governmental interest to justify regulating this form of symbolic speech. Although not a flag burning case, this represented the first time the Court had clearly stated that protest involving the physical use of the flag should be seen as a form of protected expression under the First Amendment.

1970-1980\Revision of State Flag Desecration Statutes -- During this period legislatures in some 20 States narrowed the scope of their flag desecration laws in an effort to conform to perceived Constitutional restrictions under the Street, Smith, and Spence cases and to more generally parallel the federal law (i.e., focusing more specifically on mutilation and other forms of physical desecration, rather than verbal abuse or commercial or political misuse).

1989\Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397) -- The Supreme Court upheld the Texas Court of Criminal appeals finding that Texas law -- making it a crime to "desecrate" or otherwise "mistreat" the flag in a way the "actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons" -- was unconstitutional as applied. This was the first time the Supreme Court had directly considered the applicability of the First Amendment to flag burning.

Gregory Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party, was arrested during a demonstration outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after he set fire to a flag while protestors chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Court first found that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech subject to protection under the First Amendment. The Court also determined that under United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968), since the State law was related to the suppression of freedom of expression, the conviction could only be upheld if Texas could demonstrate a "compelling" interest in its law. The Court next found that Texas' asserted interest in "protecting the peace" was not implicated under the facts of the case. Finally, while the Court acknowledged that Texas had a legitimate interest in preserving the flag as a "symbol of national unity," this interest was not sufficiently compelling to justify a "content based" legal restriction (i.e., the law was not based on protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but was designed to protect it from symbolic protest likely to cause offense to others).

1989\Revision of Federal Flag Desecration Statute -- Pursuant to the Flag Protection Act of 1989, Congress amended the 1968 federal flag desecration statute in an effort to make it "content neutral" and conform to the Constitutional requirements of Johnson. As a result, the 1989 Act sought to prohibit flag desecration under all circumstances by deleting the statutory requirement that the conduct cast contempt upon the flag and narrowing the definition of the term "flag" so that its meaning was not based on the observation of third parties.

1990\United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310) -- Passage of the Flag Protection Act resulted in a number of flag burning incidents protesting the new law. The Supreme Court overturned several flag burning convictions brought under the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Court held that notwithstanding Congress' effort to adopt a more content neutral law, the federal law continued to be principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.

1990\Rejection of Constitutional Amendment -- Following the Eichman decision, Congress considered and rejected a Constitutional Amendment specifying that "the Congress and the States have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The amendment failed to muster the necessary two-thirds Congressional majorities, as it was supported by only a 254 - 177 margin in the House (290 votes were necessary) and a 58 - 42 margin in the Senate (67 votes were necessary).

Forever In Truth May She Wave!

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

Pity that what they believe in isn't our Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech and of religion.They were just expressing that exact guarantee, albeit in an illegal fashion, in the great tradition of cultural battles in this great nation. Remember when the left was "illegally" burning the flag?

[MineralMan]

Very well done, indeed. A very good collection of information on the SCOTUS' rulings that put the words of the First Amendment above a flag.

The flag is a symbol...one which I salute everytime it passes by. It's a symbol to which I pledge my allegiance whenever the occasion arises. But...it is only a symbol...a symbol of something far more important. It is a symbol of our Consitutional government. The Constitution is far, far more important than any single example of our national emblem.

Yes, people have desecrated individual flags. It has happened infrequently, but it has happened. That desecration does nothing to the symbol...only to a piece of cloth, for the instant flame touches it, it is no longer our flag.

Whatever the reason someone burns an American flag, they do it as a statement of something. And making statements is one of the most important rights we have.

The bottom line, and past Supreme Courts have agreed, is that the Constitutional freedoms we enjoy rise above the flag, which is just a symbol of them. Nobody can harm the United States of America by burning a single example of the flag. However, damaging the right to speak is damage to our nation, no matter how offensive the subject of the speech might be.

That's not libertarianism. That's consitutionalism. There are millions of flags, but just one Constitution of the United States of America.

[MineralMan]

You know, the obscenity in your graphic may be offensive to some. We don't have freedom of speech guaranteed on Free Republic.

[JoJo Gunn]

But I consider some of the ideas that float around in the conservative movement to be dangerous and disgusting.

Oh, I totally agree. The idea I find the most dangerous and disgusting is the Big Tent mentality that seems to be oozing into here.

I don't think we need a homosexual wing of the Conservative Party. After all, if we start opening the door to them, then why not let in the Abortionists and Race Baiters and FemiNazis and Appeasers and EnviroNazis and Multi-Culti's?

Better to leave them in Fairy Land....

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

The bottom line, and past Supreme Courts have agreed, is that the Constitutional freedoms we enjoy rise above the flag, which is just a symbol of them. Nobody can harm the United States of America by burning a single example of the flag. However, damaging the right to speak is damage to our nation, no matter how offensive the subject of the speech might be.

I totally agree with this statement. And it has relevance to the current thread. Just as nobody can hurt America by burning a single example of a flag, nobody can hurt Perverted America by burning a perverted American flag, which is more to the point of this thread.

I deeply apologize if I have offended you or anyone else on this thread by the epithet included in my previous post. I know that I have seen worse on this board at times in the past....

I'm gratified to hear that you honor the flag, btw.

[Designer]

"I dont know what exactly to call it though."

How about:

F L AG

[MineralMan]

"I'm gratified to hear that you honor the flag, btw."

---

Did you ever suppose that I did not?

[rightwingreligiousfanatic]

Did you ever suppose that I did not?Yes. But not any more. I have a much better idea of where you stand. Good Luck to you, FRiend. I see you're a fellow Minnesotan, eh?

[July 4th]

They stole the flag before they burned it. They stole and destroyed someone else's property

Stealing it was uncalled for. They could have burned it right on the pole.

[MineralMan]

"I see you're a fellow Minnesotan, eh?"

---

Yah, sure...you betcha. And a Norwegian by marriage. Uffda!

[voteconstitutionparty]

It's theft to steal a flag, not vandalism. It would be vandalism had they trashed it where it was. It would've been arson had they burned it in place.

[HitmanLV]

No disagreement from me, I misread the narrative. That being said, it's not a free speech issue.

[Join Or Die]

"The idea I find the most dangerous and disgusting is the Big Tent mentality that seems to be oozing into here."

I couldn't agree more, it was caused by the stupid "You're with us or against us" mentality that Bush started. I think that may be the single most dangerous idea to come out of his administration. Don't get me wrong, overall I think the guy is doing a bangup job, but I'm not in la-la land like a lot of people thinking he can do no evil.

"I don't think we need a homosexual wing of the Conservative Party."

I guess this is where we disagree, I'm sure there's many homosexuals who hold very conservative values in many ways (defense, economic, role of the federal government).

"After all, if we start opening the door to them, then why not let in the Abortionists and Race Baiters and FemiNazis and Appeasers and EnviroNazis and Multi-Culti's?"

You say that as though conservatives have any say in who considers themself a conservative.

I'm pretty much a social liberal and an everything-else conservative (eg a libertarian) but when I have to choose between liberal or conservative I am most definitely a conservative first and foremost who just doesn't always agree with the majority of my fellow conservatives on a handful of issues.

The base of most of my disagreements is with religious ideas in conservativism. Most of the issues I am in disagreement with people on here all have their roots in the fact that I am not a religious person so I'm against any sort of religion in government, I think Intelligent Design has no place in public schools, and I have no problem with homosexuality in public life.

As I've always said, if the Republican party could tone down the Jesus they'd probably be winning elections with sweeping majorities because of people like myself and even people a little left of myself.