From: "Peter Nicol - VRL / BroomStick Productions" <nicol@highway1.com.au>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 12:17:13 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Flag Burning...
In-Reply-To: <199706131352.GAA06683@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199706250400.MAA29802@hedgehog.highway1.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> From:          "Peter Trei" <trei@process.com>
> Organization:  Process Software
> To:            panther@writeme.com, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Date:          Fri, 13 Jun 1997 09:52:50 -6
> Subject:       Re: Flag Burning...
> Reply-to:      trei@process.com
> Cc:            trei@process.com
> Priority:      normal

> "RS" writes:
> 
> I'm curious as to why you feel the need to conceal your identity.
> 
> > When it comes down to flag burning, It really bothers me that we allow our
> > symbol of freedom to be burned.  It's more than a flag and a right.  It's a
> > symbol of the freedom we have.  To allow someone to publicly burn a flag is
> > essentially displaying our freedom being burned.
> 
> It's a symbol, not the thing symbolized. You are confusing the map 
> with the country. 
> 
> Burning the flag is a statement by the burner that they feel that the
> symbol has become empty, and the freedom which the flag symbolizes is
> gone or has been compromised in some manner. It's clearly a form of
> political speech. True, It's a very strong statement, but strong 
> political speech has been protected by the Constitution (at least up till 
> now).
>  
> > Bush was a veteran, and Clinton was not.  I take it the ones who are
> > writing on this subject about how we should have the "freedom" to burn the
> > flag have never served in the military or for our country.   
> 
> You are mistaken - some of the people opposing your viewpoint have 
> stated that they are veterans.
> 
> > Being a veteran myself, I find it very distateful to allow anyone on our
> > soil to be allowed to "BURN" our symbol of freedom.  Think about the flag
> > for a moment and what it really stands for.  Does it not stand for freedom
> > and liberty?
> 
> It does *stand* for freedom and liberty, but only as long those 
> values really exist. It *is* *not* freedom and libery in it's own
> right.
>  
> When what the flag symbolizes is gone, it becomes just a piece of 
> cloth. Burning this cloth draws attention to the loss. It is a dramatic
> statement, but under certain circumstances an appropriate one.
>  
> > Sorry, I just had to let this out.  I stand behind Bush on this one.  Don't
> > burn the flag unless you would like to live under another flag!
> 
> Thank you for your opinion. You are of course free to express it. And 
> I, and other thoughtful, freedom-loving Americans can oppose it.
> 
> Think about this:
> 
> Would you rather people did not burn the flag because:
> 
> 1. They'll be thrown in the slammer if they do.
> 2. The revere the values for which it stands, and will not descrate a
>    meaningful symbol of these values.
> 
> In (2), we can look at the (very rare) individuals who *do* burn the
> flag, and determine for ourselves if they have a valid point to 
> convey.  
> 
> In (1), we'll never know.
> 
> For Congress to deny the freedom to burn the flag is a desecration of what
> the flag stands for - a descration of the flag by the government itself.
> 

You Crazy Americans . . . I dont think anyone else in the world would 
give a fuck someone burnt their countries flag, certainly not in 
Australia.  What is it about your country?

My friend is a New Zealander.  When she was in school for a short 
while in America, she was beaten up for not reciting the "Pledge of 
Allegiance" in class everymorning.

Pete Nicol
Global Media Magnet
nicol@iap.net.au



BroomStick Productions
VRL - the Virtual Record Label
(+61 9) 335 9490   fax (+61 9) 335 9508
nicol@iap.net.au
broomstick@occtech.com.au

Current Project: www.iinet.com.au/~ratty/legends