Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: Flag Protection Amendment won't harm Bill of Rights

MIKE O'CALLAGHAN is executive editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

ON FLAG DAY and again on this Fourth of July weekend, my neighborhood displays dozens of flags flying in front of homes. The flag of our country in the summer breeze is a sight that adds comfort to any scene. The combination of colors and its long and exciting history make our flag very special.

Why protecting our flag from desecration pushes so many hot buttons among some media members is beyond me. Recently cartoons and editorials have been directed against the Flag Protection Amendment soon to be considered by the U.S. Senate. More attacks, under the guise of protecting the First Amendment, are on the way because it now looks like it will be passed by the necessary two-thirds of the Senate. Then, you can safely bet, more than the necessary 38 states will ratify it. The House of Representatives passed the proposed amendment a year ago.

So what's this big threat to the First Amendment? "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States," is the entire proposed amendment. If this is a threat to free speech or freedom of the press, then both freedoms must be standing on very weak legs. This we know isn't true because these freedoms are stronger today than they were any time in the past.

As I have written before, I'm more than a little insulted by the inane argument that such a constitutional change will be an infringement on our right of free speech. That argument, made by many who oppose an amendment to protect the flag, has little or nothing to do with damaging the First Amendment. A person can write and talk all day long and into the night about the shortcomings of our city, state and nation. That same person, if angry enough, can renounce his or her citizenship without being worried about being jailed. Millions of Americans believe public desecration of our nation's symbol is taking it one step beyond acceptable behavior and is an act beyond the bounds of free speech.

I'm the last person in the country to deny that some scoundrels and windbags have wrapped themselves in Old Glory to appear patriotic. Also, there are many other scoundrels and windbags who claim they are protecting the First Amendment by promoting the right to desecrate and publicly embarrass the flag of our nation.

Please, don't any of the so-called purists or media protectors of the First Amendment get on the platform and tell me that this amendment is an assault against free speech. A large majority of Americans and Nevadans can easily distinguish between burning and insulting our flag and having the right to express our opinions about anything and everything.

My Navajo friend Thomas Begay who served as a "code talker" with the Marines in the Pacific during World War II said it best when writing:

"Passage of this amendment is but one small step toward restoring some accountability for one's actions. Responsibility for one's actions is part of being a citizen of this country."

Northwestern University law professor Stephen Presser told USA Today, "The Flag Protection Amendment does nothing to infringe the First Amendment. The baseline of decency, civility, responsibility and order that the amendment is designed to supply is what makes the exercise of our fundamental freedoms possible."

Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., one of our nation's true believers in and defenders of the U.S. Constitution, recently put it best when writing: "There are two main questions in the flag-burning dispute: First, is flag-burning conduct 'imbued with speech' and, hence, protected by the First Amendment? The answer to that question is a resounding no.

"To burn an object in order to demonstrate contempt for it is not speech; it's the antithesis. It is not a form of argument -- it is an act of contempt for the very idea of reasoned argument. Flag burning is no more speech than a child's temper tantrum, and to suggest the Framers intended to protect such childish displays of pique is demeaning and degrading. Free speech has never been absolute, as our laws against obscenity, libel, slander and copyright infringement attest."

I can't disagree with the argument that the U.S. Constitution shouldn't have to be amended to protect the flag. Nevertheless, Americans have been boxed into the necessity for this amendment because the Supreme Court has refused to protect it from physical desecration. A simple law to protect Old Glory was declared unconstitutional by the Supremes and therefore the amendment became necessary.

Patrick Brady, Medal of Honor recipient, recently wrote an editorial for USA Today that expressed some of the same concerns I've heard from some other veterans:

"As we near a Senate vote on the flag amendment, which is supported by 80 percent of the people, an uncomprehending media and legal elite tell us of horrors, undefined, that will result if the right to protect our flag is returned to the people.

"One wonders why they fear the democratic process and deceive the people by claiming this amendment changes the Bill of Rights.

"It is not the media that gave us the freedoms in the Bill of Rights; our veterans did.

"These great blood donors to our freedom understand the importance of free speech and would die for it. What they do not understand is how defecating on our flag can be 'speech.'"

Not all Americans, or all veterans, agree with the Flag Protection Amendment. Some of my close friends and workers in the media disagree with it. Certainly they have the full protection of the First Amendment to attack it and even demonstrate against it. Their voices are being heard every day and will continue to be heard. This is what America is all about. Defecating on or burning Old Glory isn't the American way to show dissent.

archive