Talk:Flag Desecration Amendment

message: This article should be moved to Flag Desecration Amendment, as the proposed amendment itself refers to desecration (which may not involved burning at all), and would likely not prohibit non-desecratory flag burning. Any opinions on the matter? -- BD2412 talk 18:25, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
*Ok, article moved. -- BD2412 talk 16:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be moved to [[Flag Desecration Amendment]] 

message: Not sure which way to move it, but the two articles seem to have virtually the same content so I don't see the point of having it duplicated.  MartinMcCann 12:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Flag desecration in the United States]] 

message: I feel that there should be no arugment about this subject; there is but one clear solution, which is to pass the amendment. Folks, let's face it--the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and we should face the fact that this is but a small part of life. The law would be but a simple gesture toward everyone who cherishes the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B4JWf5 (talk • contribs) 
*That would legally turn the flag into a Holy Relic, and it would no longer be "our" flag, but someone else's. Wahkeenah 16:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: B4JWf5 comment

message: "The concept of flag burning continues to provoke a heated debate". Hilarious. 207.224.94.91 23:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Har har har. 

message: One of the polls cited in the article was an unscientific CNN poll, which is not a good source of polling information; I've noticed on many occaision those polls give wildly inaccurate results. Additionally, while the article claimed over half of those who voted in the poll were for the amendment, I just checked the poll and it was actually at 32% for, 68% against. Titanium Dragon 16:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed one of the polls

message: Let's just make the flag too expensive for anyone to buy so that no one would dare burn it.
User:66.45.219.144 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make them too expensive 

message: The broad wording of the amendment would indeed allow for the Congress to declare a birthday cake on a flag to be considered "desecration" (or "dessert-cration"). That's how an amendment should be worded. However, it's a potential trap, and people who stop and think about it know that. The amendment would lead to much vigorous debate on the question of what is a flag and what is desecration... and possibly a significant reduction of the public displays of the flag, for fear of being accused of desecration (such as leaving it out in the rain - or putting it on a birthday cake). End of editorial. Delete if you want to. :) Wahkeenah 17:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that leads to the perennial n-1 debate - if a line is drawn, then some scurrilious protester will try to get as close to the line as possible without actually crossing it (e.g. burning red white and blue cocktail napkins, or burning a twelve-striped red white and dark teal flag). bd2412 T 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, Congress would also have power to define what "the U.S. Flag" actually is. Wahkeenah 01:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without limitation. If I paint a toaster with random orange and purple stars and stripes, I doubt that Congress could craft a definition of that phrase that would prevent me from taking a hammer to it. Courts will find themselves faced with the question of what the original intent of Congress was when they wrote those words - what did the framers of the Amendment mean by "flag"? bd2412 T 02:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the amendment is broadly worded enough, it would be without limitation. Congress could define what the flag is as well as what constitutes desecration. But if they made it too strict, people would probably stop displaying the flag altogether, in any form, and then there would be calls for somebody's head. More narrowly, the U.S. already has pretty strict guidelines as to the layout of the flag. Also, you can do anything you like to a flag in private. Wahkeenah 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: How would you propose to address that? Make the section for proponents wordier? Remove arguments actually raised in opposition? Perhaps the argument in favor is simply naturally more succint, and would lose power if embellished upon. bd2412 T 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday cakes? 

message: The comments regarding flag burning should be excised.  This amendment does not mention burning, combustion, fire, smoke, or any other means of altering a flag by the application of heat.  It refers to "desecration," a deliberately vague term the Bush Supremes could interpret as any criticism of the President or any other politician wrapped in the American flag or wearing a flag lapel.  All speech is physical, and all criticism of right wing politicians can be interpreted as desecration, just like drawings of Mohammed. No one has been burning flags in America as a means of protest because it would be counterproductive.  If they did do so, it would probably be a violation of some municipal burning ordinance.  Aside from the danger of open fires in the public square, the only damage would be that some people would feel disgust and some crackpots may become violent (and hopefully prosecuted).  Most flags are made in China anyway; if they want to protect Americans, they should be preventing desecration of working people.
When politicians attempt to limit the First Amendment in any way, their motives should be highly suspect.  When they do so without even the pretense of a compelling reason, their motives are either cynical or sinister and they should be removed from office at the next election if not sooner, no matter what else they have done.  Fairandbalanced (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag burning is irrelevant 

message: Seriously, the picture is just there to offend US citizens. --Rockstone (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This picture is of US Citizens in Keene, New Hampshire burning the flag.  If I had to guess, I'd wager, judging by the rest of the album, that they are part of the Free State Project.  I see no harm in the picture, it's worth 1000 words and makes you think - perhaps react gutturally.  Does it make you angry?  It makes me angry.  But I believe that, as Americans, they are in their right to burn a flag (except the fire itself is probably illegal), and the fact that we are so free makes me happy.  CSZero (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm actually of the opinion that a picture for the lede should more clearly indicate the issue. Since desecration can occur in manners other than burning (and since not all burning is intentional desecration), we should have an image of a flag being intentionally damaged in a manner other than burning. It is not at all clear from the image itself that the burning flag in this image was intentionally set on fire as a means of making a statement. bd2412 T 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need a picture for this? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:J20 corporate flag dc.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: There are insufficient sources about the subtopic. So I tagged it as "original research". --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the points made in the section are supported by the First Amendment Center article. I have now fixed the link to that article. bd2412 T 20:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Interpretation" section tagged for original research 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flag Desecration Amendment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060327072536/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15418 to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15418
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150610213518/http://washingtonobserver.org/en/document.cfm?documentid=58&charid=3 to http://washingtonobserver.org/en/document.cfm?documentid=58&charid=3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified