- Oct 18, 2011
- 22,336
- 12,851
- 1,405
People still identify with Nation flags the same way they identify with political, social…….even sports team flags.Let's look a history of flags.
The English flag.
Flag of England - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Henry II decided he needed a symbol so he chose the St. George's Cross. Kings have, since then, used this flag. The flag represents the monarch of England. It doesn't represent the people.
Flag of China.
Flag of China - Wikipedia
Red for Communism, the five stars represent "the unity of the Chinese people under the CCP", or, the CCP seeing how they don't have much choice about this unity.
Again, it's about the power of the CCP. It doesn't represent the people.
Flags represent the power.
The US flag has 13 stripes to represent the 13 original colonies. i.e. the power of those states and the 50 stars to represent the states that exist today, again, the power.
That is what a flag is. Here's our power, we're in control of this country.
We can see that in China they had a different flag before the Communists took over, same with Germany, France and many other countries that have had revolutions. "I'm in charge now, here's MY flag to represent MY power."
It doesn't represent the people. Not even the Communist red represents the people of the country.
I'm not cherry picking at all. Again, I know what I'm talking about.
Some things are inherent within a person.
Gender, sexuality, skin color, you're born with this, it's who you are.
Nobody is born into power. Not even Kin Jong Un was certain to gain power in North Korea, he's the second child, Kim Jong Chul was the oldest to Kim Jong Il and his consort. However Kim Jong Nam was older, one of two children to a different mistress.
I can protest power. The First Amendment says "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, "
Here were have the right to peaceably assemble.
In the first draft it read "The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances"
In other words, the Founding Fathers wanted people to be able to talk about politics. They wanted them to be able to criticize the powers that be. It's enshrined in the Constitution.
The Freedom of Speech is also enshrined. However, in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) they said:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
i.e. the freedom of speech is LIMITED, just like every other right (including the right to protest).
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
You create a "clear and present danger", your right is not protected.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-640561046-5c2fa60746e0fb0001d2d4b4.jpg)
6 Major U.S. Supreme Court Hate Speech Cases
Discover six of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark cases on hate speech and the First Amendment since World War II.www.thoughtco.com
Virginia v. Black (2003)
""[A] State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation," O'Connor wrote, "that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm." As a caveat, the justices noted, such acts can be prosecuted if the intent is proven, something not done in this case."
In other words, you can't ban cross burning, because burning a cross in itself doesn't do much. However using intimidation or threatening harm, or even creating a clear and present danger, then you are not protected.
So, if you go around burning certain flags and you create a clear and present danger, or you use it to intimidate, then you're not protected.
I guess, it would be possible, in theory, to use US flag burning to intimidate or create a clear and present danger, but I don't know of any case where this has ever happened.
