Kucinich and Flag Burning
I found a link in which Dennis Kucinich kind of explains his vote several years ago in support of a law banning flag burning, and kind of explains why he no longer feels such a law is appropriate. In an article in the Pasadena Weekly, he is quoted saying, " Let's talk about the context. Let's do it," he said. "The context of that vote came from a time when America was not at war and wasn't conducting aggressive warfare. Now the meaning of the flag has been changed. And the flag is being promoted by an administration in such a way as to imply aggression. I think Americans have to be free to express their opinions. I mean the flag does stand for our nation. But I regret that our nation is standing for war today."
What this implies is that whether flag burning is acceptable or not depends on what the flag stands for at the time it is burned. When he supported such a ban, he thought the flag stood for good things. Now he apparently believes it symbolizes bad things. That's not acceptable. The biggest problem is that he apparently feels it's okay to regulate speech, at least symbolic speech, according to its content. In other words, I'll let you hang that sign or burn that flag as long as I agree with what your message, but not otherwise. That is antithetical to basic free speech protection, which holds that limitations on speech must be value neutral.
Another problem is that burning a flag, though it obviously has a significant emotional impact on those who witness it, and I presume, on those who do it, is a particularly inarticulate form of symbolic political speech. Unless the act is accompanied by words explaining it, nobody can be sure just what the burner's message is. We know he is angry at his country (or maybe not, maybe its just his government), but beyond that we don't know much. If we're not clear on the burner's message, how can we know if we agree with it so we can allow it?
I don't mean to pick on Kucinich here. I think he has taken a lot of stands during this campaign and throughout his political career that I agree with and admire. If voting were held today, I'd vote for him. But I worry about the kind of fuzzy thinking that could produce a rationale like this (not as bad as Dean's death penalty rationalizations, but worthy of mentioning in the same paragraph). I think he could and should do better.
|
