I recently saw this advertised on my Facebook for purchase to "show your support" for "Blue Lives Matter":
I'm curious what you guys think about this. While I fully support our police, and Law Enforcement professionals, I'm not sure that I am entirely comfortable with this sort of promotion. I mean imagine the United States flag being presented with any other colour scheme (say green, and red - the colours of South Africa - in support of "Black Lives matter") for whatever cause you want to think about. Would you consider that a disrespectful use of the American Flag? Then why would it be any less disrespectful, just because it happens to be a cause that one happens to agree with?
Now, I have no doubt that people are going to bring up flag burning, "art projects" (you'll notice I put that in quotation marks) in which the "artist" pisses on the flag, stomps on the flag, or, in some other way, disrespects the flag. While I understand that the Supreme Court have decided that this is a
legal act of expression, I still find it no less disrespectful. So, let us not get bogged down in whether it is
legal, or not. I am more interested in whether you think it is
appropriate.
Although I support the police I wouldn't display the Blue Lives Matter flag. I would have a bumper sticker with Blue Lives Matter on it. The American flag is the symbol of the greatest country on earth and each color, stripes and stars have a meaning. I can't find the word "expression" in the 1st Amendment or the Constitution and I can't imagine how those liberal progressive members of SCOTUS can think shitting on or burning the flag is "expression." They need their old bony asses stomped for that decision. And the people who desecrate the flag need some broken arms and cracked skulls.
Okay. The question is one of the spirit of the First amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" Was this only a promise that American citizns are guaranteed the right to
say whatever they like, or are they allowed the freedom to
express themselves without fear of government reprisal? If it is only the former, then what about paintings? Does this mean that if I paint a picture of the President that is...less than flattering...the government should be allowed to round me up, and throw me in prison? What about music? Or theatre? It is for this reason that the Courts determined that the
spirit of the First Amendment was to allow individuals the freedom to express themselves. Now, that being said, we have determined that almost none of our rights are universal, without limitations. This is, in fact, the fight over the Second. Why should it be sacrosanct when no other right is? We already have limits to what, and when you can say things. Try yelling "Fire" without cause in a crowded theatre, and see what happens. My personal opinion is that one of those limitations should extend to recognised symbols of our liberties - notably the flag. Unfortunately, the Courts do not agree. They believe that an individual's right to express themselves trumps any value of an ideological symbol. Hence the legality of desecrating the flag for "artistic, or political purpose".