For all the discussion on flag-burning that has been going on in the United States Congress and Senate, there is a much larger problem that has already been addressed by law, but seemingly completely ignored by the establishment. If we are to be so all up ons about flag burning, then we should also enforce the laws we already have! (This is after thinking about
teacherken's incredible 3AM post)
I should note that I am in no way for this amendment. The First Amendment issues aside, teacherken points out quite well in his work that legislating based on social issues (and this is something I see both as a speech and a social issue, because of its relation to one topic) is both in bad taste and ineffective. The one time in American history that it does do so, we had to repeal that (Prohibition). However, in the terrible case that this thing were to pass, and just because this stuff is on the books, I wonder why people aren't outraged about the other law breaking occurring in regards to our flag.
I present to you United States Code Chapter 1, Section 8. I will do this point by point, for fun and giggles.
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of
America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing.
Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags
are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
OK. There is no flag better than the American flag, and it dips to no one. I believe the "no disrespect" part applies to the different parts I'm about to look at:
(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except
as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or
property.
I'm actually going to use some old-school Truthout here, because William Rivers Pitt does get into a little bit of good stuff on this end and later on one of the central points of what I'm writing. This story has much to do with my college experience, because I was there. In March 2003, some buddies of my hung a flag upside down outside their house in response to the beginning of the Iraq War. They did it based on this part of the US Code, noting that there is dire distress because of what could come out of this war, and now, in retrospect, what has come out of it. In response, they had members of the local VFW entering their home, trying to find them. They also got fish taped to the door, hate letters, rocks through the window, and a half-hour berating from Boston's favorite wingnut, Howie Carr. At the same time, they did what they did out of love for the flag rather than out of some form of disrespect. Well, we can debate that, but it was about love of a country on a path that was completely incorrect.
I'm going to skip ahead to Part d, because that's about where we start seeing the hypocrisy.
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or
drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but
always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always
arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red
below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front
of the platform, and for decoration in general.
To clarify:
American flag bedding is illegal. So are leather jackets, shirts, and baggy pants using the American flag as clothing are wrong as well. Now you're saying, that's not the American flag! They aren't using an actual flag to do this. True, I give you that, but (i) clarifies this much better:
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any
manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as
cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed
on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use
and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or
halyard from which the flag is flown.
So even the embroidering of the flag on products is not protected, particularly in advertising. And, considering that you are temporarily using your clothes, that would include the aforementioned groups.
(i) also hits on something that many forget. The American flag cannot be used for advertising. Let's see, now who the heck does that?
FOX NEWS!!! :) I can't find the ads that inspired "The Colbert Report"'s opening bit, but here's Henry Rollins on Fox News to show how Fox does this in even its regular broadcasts, because as we all know, Henry makes many situations much less painful. Check out the top left of the screen. "Hey kids, we're Fox, we're one with the flag! Let's use the flag to remind you of who we are!
It goes beyond Fox News, but I shall leave it up to you, the interpid commentor, to find more advertising hypocrisy and advertising idiocy.
There are two more parts I wish to address briefly. First, on a humourous note, I believe Rocky Balboa, Homestar Runner, and Captain America may be in trouble in terms of part (j)
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic
uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military
personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living
thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on
the left lapel near the heart.
If we are to assume that the emblematic part from i extends to j, then our fictional friends might have a problem. All three use costumes that are in some way inspired by the United States flag. At the same time, all three, if they were real people, could argue that their costumes are meant to be their own interpretations rather than the flag itself. Either way, it's an interesting side-note to the US Code.
The last one I will discuss, part (f), deals with the writing on the flag. Others have covered this better than I, including cmkay, who provides us a shot of the Great Decider doing the same thing.
What does all of this say then? For everyone who talks about burning the flag, I ask you? Why are you not outraged about Fox News' advertising using the flag? Why, in the one case it would be acceptable to agree with Zell Miller, were you not as outraged as he was about Kid Rock's defecation of the flag, yet so up ons about Janet Jackson's breast? If advertising is disrespect, then why don't you fight back against that, and instead fight political symbols? Or, as we all can probably guess, is it less about rights and more about the almighty dollar. It is, isn't it?