Burning free speech rights

In a week in which the world tragically learned (again) the dangers of attaching an unwavering loyalty and willingness to kill and be a martyr for a symbol, U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Rogers, comes forth with a proposed U.S. House Resolution that would create a process allowing the states to approve a Constitutional Amendment banning the burning of the U.S. flag.

Womack, a veteran and former colonel in the U.S. Army, noted in a press release about his proposal: “Throughout our nation’s history, Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice for the values espoused in our flag, and as a veteran, I believe it is disgraceful to allow it to be desecrated. Our flag is not only one of the greatest symbols of our nation, it’s one of the most prominent symbols of freedom and democracy in the world. We should be allowed to protect it.”

Members of The City Wire staff are also veterans, and wish no one would burn the U.S. flag. The staff and owners of The City Wire detest the sight of a protester burning a U.S. flag, but are more offended at anyone wishing to limit the First Amendment right of free speech that the flag protects, and minimize or eliminate a fundamental freedom protected by those who “made the ultimate sacrifice.”

The courts have consistently ruled that banning flag burning is a violation of free speech.

Furthermore, the use of the flag image is broad – just think of the many uses in commerce and art – and would place Congress and the Courts in the position of establishing rules for the varied uses and then determining if those rules are constitutional. May we burn a picture of the flag? If you burn clothes that presents a representation of the U.S. flag, would you be a criminal?

Also, there are many pressing issues – deficit spending, infrastructure problems, healthcare, business regulation, tax code reform, etc. – facing the U.S. and the 3rd District that will have a more direct impact on the country and its citizens than a flag-burning ban.

To wit, a reader of The City Wire sent this question following Womack’s announcement of his effort to ban flag burning: “If he cared as much about stopping the rapid growth of the $18+ trillion federal debt as someone burning the flag they own, why didn't he propose a constitutional amendment to stop deficit spending also while he is trying to alter the Constitution?”

When asked about this issue of priorities, Womack’s office sent this response: “As a veteran, this is an issue close to Congressman Womack’s heart. He strongly believes protecting the ideals of our country is not only worthwhile, but a priority. That doesn’t mean deficit spending, infrastructure problems, healthcare, business regulation, etc. etc. are not priorities, too, and he has – and will continue to – remain committed to solutions to address those issues, too.”

We are not surprised at Womack’s push for a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. He also was eager to approve continued funding for domestic spying programs that many believe infringe upon our civil liberties. This also is the Congressman who introduced a silly law to prevent federal funds from being used for President Obama’s teleprompters. This hyper-partisan bill would have saved taxpayers an estimated $5 million.

When pressed on the conflict between a flag-burning ban and the First Amendment, Womack’s office noted: “The passage of this bill would give the American people the chance to decide if flag desecration is a “freedom of speech” they would like to protect by sending it to the states for ratification. Congressman Womack believes this activity should be banned, but this bill does not make that judgment call.”

The only way this resolution could be more troubling is if Womack proposed it only to force a vote and force Democrats – and moderate Republicans with Libertarian leanings – to vote against it so that such votes could be used in the 2016 election cycle.