Flag Burning is Horrendous, Hate Speech is Okay

Freedom of speech, one of the most valued tenets of American democracy. It’s been used as a shield to allow people to openly speak their mind no matter how offensive or false. It has been used as a weapon against other nations that live under despotic tyrants (who put them there?), their lack of rights seen as another example of their backwardness compared to the United States.

But what does this cherished liberty really entail? Most know the basic limitations to the First Amendment, such as not yelling fire in public place or publicly defaming a person’s character under false pretenses. I say most because it seems not even the President-elect Donald Trump truly understands this concept. That’s because in the end, what Freedom of Speech means depends on who you ask.

To the Supreme Court, flag burning is considered a form of speech that can be freely expressed, while burning a cross or wearing an armband in protest on school property are prohibited. To the alt-right, flag burning is overtly offensive, unpatriotic and those that partake in the form of protest should be thrown in jail for treason. The latter are vehemently adamant that they will overturn the landmark Texas v. Johnson decision now that they have a government that works for them (although this may be easier said than done.)

On the other hand, the alt-right has taken the title of First Amendment avengers, defending any person that has been in their eyes unfairly silenced for their racy views. They also believe the American culture is being neutered by a “politically correct” stigma that is silencing them from speaking how they really feel, no matter how vile, despicable or bigoted a statement is and without any concern for those impacted by it. This movement has been led by the infamous Milo Yiannopoulos, editor at Breitbart News, main headquarters for alt-right news and views panned by critics as anti-semitic, Islamophobic, racist and sexist.

Yiannopoulos seems an odd bedfellow to lead the effort in defending the First Amendment; for one thing he is not a United States citizen but a British immigrant, a gay catholic to boot. That hasn’t stopped his popularity from surging due to his extensive work in verbally abusing any threat to the alt right. He rose to prominence through he and his cadre’s attacks on feminists and female gamers now referred to as Gamergate, resulting in not only rape and death threats on social media but Yiannopoulos’ first ban on Twitter for being the ringleader of these vile attacks.

Whether coincidence or not, he was appointed “tech editor” at Breitbart soon after the controversy, basically being rewarded for abusing women and anyone that supported them. The self-described journalist was a necessary cog in the alt-right machine, a young replacement for the late Andrew Breitbart, the original firebrand that inspired the movement. Yiannopoulos would be able to coalesce a newer generation of fire-ants from 4Chan and the bowels of Reddit to join the conservative news website’s mission to burn everything down in the name of freedom of expression.

Over the past summer Yiannopoulos crawled into the limelight again by launching a campaign against Ghostbusters, the female-reboot of a 80s comedy, which eventually took aim at one of the stars of the film, Leslie Jones. The attack included derogatory remarks veiled with racism and sexism, and led to Jones website being hacked with personal photos leaked. His alt-right gang also created false tweets to make it appear the actress was anti-semitic. Eventually Twitter initiated a permanent ban against Yiannopoulos, in part a response to the abuse against Jones but also partially due to the website’s slow response to the slew of attacks against users during Gamergate.

All of these incidents have fueled the provocateur and his devout followers belief that they are being singled out and attacked for simply expressing their point of views. Unfortunately for victims of such verbal attacks and threats of violence, the alt-right is protected by the First Amendment also under the auspices of the Supreme Court. Some forms of hate speech are prohibited but only if they incite imminent violence, an arbitrary test that is hardly appropriated but nevertheless useless in its antiquity in a modern era when increases in online bullying have correlated with an increase in suicides.

As Breitbart editor-in-chief Stephen Bannon is named Chief Strategist in the Trump administration and an uptick in hate crimes has multiplied since the election, Milo Yiannopoulos waits in the shadows for his next chance to have his name and face plastered across the internet. Hopefully his next ventured will result in a criminal case and he will be deported for being a law-breaking immigrant. For now, he and his cohorts will defend to death their right to smear and demoralize any nonwhite queer female while crying over the burning of the flag because it’s disrespectful.

U.S. Flags Matter (For the Moment)

Since President-elect Donald Trump won the election on Tuesday thousands have gathered to protest in cities across the United States, denouncing and avidly claiming he is not their president. If that wasn’t enough to piss off Trump supporters trying to celebrate their long-shot victory over Secretary Hillary Clinton, burning the U.S. flag has certainly lit a fire on their facebook feed.

To Trumpeters and fellow conservatives, burning of the flag only serves as a further extension of the disrespect others have of their beloved nation and subsequently, although illogical, disrespect of armed forces and veterans. Beginning with the countless protests by Black Lives Matters two years ago to the more recent displays of dissent by football players starting with San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, many gung-ho Americans have been up in arms (literally at times) over these acts. Now with their holy Trump taking over the White House, they believe order will be restored and the streets will be cleared of these devout First Amendment protesters.

While flag burning was deemed constitutional and protected under the First Amendment by freedom of speech in the 1989 Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, some believe that Trump will have the power to overturn this ruling once he installs new justices to the Supreme Court. At the moment, it seems the reality tv star will have an immediate opportunity to fill the bench as the Senate continues to stall with President Barack Obama’s nominee, and it will very likely return to a conservative slanted courthouse.

What remains in question is how will a flag protection act be enacted, as the Senate will need a supermajority to pass any legislation, needing at least 10 additional votes from across the aisle. While some Democrats may be hard-pressed, especially if they are vulnerable to be voted out in mid-term elections, arguably they might form a coalition that vows to not work with Republicans just as the GOP had done for the past 8 years. Maybe the Trump administration can single out certain Democrats that feel flag-burning is unpatriotic, but it will not be easy.

If and once the legislation passes, will it be automatically implemented or will it need to pass various hurdles as again the Supreme Court had already decided bans on flag burning were unconstitutional? And if it does reach the highest court in the land, how will it be decided?

If the Texas v. Johnson case is any indication, it might be not be as easy as some Trump and other Conservatives like to believe. The case was a 5-4 split, with liberal Justice William Brennan writing the opinion that “burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct.” What was perhaps most astounding about the case is two of the Justices that sided with the majority included Republican-leaning judges such as the late Antonin Scalia and current Justice Anthony Kennedy, with Kennedy providing a concurrence stating “…sometimes we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right….”

Therefore, so long as Kennedy still believes that flag burning is protected speech and the four liberal Justices side with him, any legislation banning such an act will be deemed unconstitutional. This is not all too clear either, as the original case found some liberals against flag-burning, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor has shown that she is above partisan politics when deciding Supreme Court cases.

In conclusion, burning of the U.S. flag will remain a staple in the protests against Trump and all he stands for, and an eyesore to those that champion the symbol over other issues plaguing the nation, at least for another two years. Until then, protests shouldn’t forget to bring some chestnuts to roast over that open fire while they freeze their buns in front of Trump Tower.