US District Judge Rules that Megan Phelps-Roper Can Desecrate American Flag

[TheMeaningOfItAll]

LINCOLN, Neb. -- The Kansas family known for protesting at the funerals for fallen American soldiers has won a legal victory in Nebraska.U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kopf gave Megan Phelps-Roper permission to desecrate the American flag and warned that she was not to be arrested.Phelps-Roper walked on the flag in Lincoln on Wednesday in a political protest."It's a way of showing that this thing, this piece of cloth that you worship, is worthless to help you," she said.Kopf ruled in favor of Phelps-Roper and against Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning. His ruling said that if Phelps-Roper's First Amendment rights were impaired, she would suffer irreparable injury.The ruling also said that Phelps-Roper's actions posed no threat to Bruning and that the attorney general's effort to stop her would be unconstitutional.Kopf also said that while the public may not like the fact that Phelps-Roper has a constitutional right to dishonor the American flag and the Nebraska flag, the First Amendment trumps the citizenry's preference for patriotism.

http://www.ketv.com/news/24177130/detail.html

So, what do you guys think? Should her First Amendment right trump everything else?

[Kufismacka]

i know all about these sick fucks (phelps family), these inbreds go to soldiers funerals and protest. these worthless pieces of flesh need to be shot already..

[Just my luck sucks]

Put her in a room with our vets---especially those that have seen action in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Korea....

Wish my father was alive...he'd teach her a thing or two about respecting the American flag. He beat my butt, when I came home wearing a peace sign on the backside of my shorts....it looked like the flag had been cut out to make the peace sign.

I hid those shorts for years.....

[Aena]

Oh how nice, the Phelps family once again in the news. These sick fuckers seriously have no respect for anyone but themselves (if even themselves). I really hope that when someone in their clan dies, people gather at his/her funeral with signs that says god hates <insert name of their loved one>


I went to their site once and was disgusted when I was reading all their garbage. I really think they just do all this shit to be in the spotlight or on tv.


Go check out their website when you seriously have nothing better to do.
godhatesfags.com real classy domain name.

[Dneilz]

personally, if you live in America and enjoy the freedom that our soldiers have fought for then NOTHING should ever trump..... you live here, respect America and its people. If you can't do that... get the fuck out of our country. You aren't an American if you don't respect the flag of our Country. I don't care where the hell you were born. If you feel the need to disrespect our country and the men and woman who have died fighting for our freedom... then fucking leave NOW.

[Dneilz]

How ironic that the freedom of having constitutional rights is protecting these people from being in trouble for disrespecting the very flag that represents that freedom. It is just disgusting to hear this.

[runecire]

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Fighting Words and Other Threats to the Peace.—In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,95 the Court unanimously sustained a conviction under a statute proscribing “any offensive, derisive, or annoying word” addressed to any person in a public place under the state court’s interpretation of the statute as being limited to “fighting words”— i.e., to “words . . . [which] have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed.” The statute was sustained as “narrowly drawn and limited to define and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a breach of the peace.”96 The case is best known for Justice Murphy’s famous dictum. “[I]t is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well–defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”97

Read more at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht...ml#amdt1d_hd15


As far as I'm concerned, The Phelps' actions are designed to promote a breach of the public peace and therefore is NOT protected by the US Constituion.

[runecire]

18 U.S.C. 700 Banning Desecration of the US Flag:

§ 700. Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties


(a) (1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/700.html

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

• This Act may be cited as the `Flag Protection Act of 1989'.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PENALTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE PHYSICAL INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES FLAG.

• (a) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 700 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

• `(a)(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

• `(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.'.

• (b) DEFINITION- Section 700(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

• `(b) As used in this section, the term `flag of the United States' means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.'.

More at:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc-cgi/g...target=101-131


Edit to add: For more review:



4. Amendment : To require that desecration of the flag be public in order to be a criminal act.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d101:./temp/~bdazbMr:1[1-4](Amendments_For_H.R.2978)&./temp/~bdoqmL|/bss/d101query.html|

[runecire]

Someone needs to push this ruling through the appeals courts. I don't see how this judge could have allowed the desecration of the American flag considering the laws that are on the books. These are federal laws. My understanding is that they must be upheld by the state courts also.

This ruling needs to be tested.

[Dneilz]

I agree runecire. It is just despicable that anyone would treat our flag like this.

[Valasca]

Gah, a bad nightmare returns.
Yes, she has constitutional rights, but fuck... not the way she does it does it make it... better. (not the word i want, will do for now.)

[ImmortalOne]

How ironic she use the freedoms that the soldiers who helped to create this country gave her to do this. Pathetic in my opinion and my opinion of the government and war is pretty low as it is.

I love my country, its my government I fear.

[62julietandvoid]

Trashy handjobs these pple are.

The flag is one thing, but wtf do these wackjobs think they are to heckle grieving family and friends???????????? AT a fucking funeral???????????????

How in the fuck they havent had their asses stomped by now?????????

Fags? isnt what they're doing harassment?

your pastor is a whore? wtf...

I hope, at one of their funeral hate sessions, their group gets smacked by a rainbow bus that has a big sign accross the front bumper that reads "GOD HATES YOU TOO"

[Athena]

Someone needs to push this ruling through the appeals courts. I don't see how this judge could have allowed the desecration of the American flag considering the laws that are on the books. These are federal laws. My understanding is that they must be upheld by the state courts also.

This ruling needs to be tested.

The laws ARE being tested. If it gets appealed, that judge will rule the same way. It can be tested, like many have in the past, all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will reaffirm the right to desecrate the flag.

You see, a law can be passed regardless of its constitutionality. For example, say California bans the flying of the U.S. flag. Clearly unconstitutional, but they can put that law on the books. It won't be repealed until it is tested in court and it's constitutionality is reviewed (this is what they are doing in AZ with its new immigration law).

Ahhhh... my fetus has the hiccups again. I swear, this poor child gets the hiccups daily, lately. What a tortured existance (and kind of distracting for me).

Anyway, repeatedly, the courts have upheld a person's right to desecrate the flag. This new ruling is nothing new at all. Rulings like this have been made since the '70s. Since then, the Supreme Court has ruled against laws banning desecration at both the state and federal levels. Congress keeps trying to override the Court's ruling by passing new laws against desecration after the old laws are struck down, but they keep getting tested and struck down by the Supreme Court. Here is a history of the major cases involving flag desecration.

So, this judge has ruled in a way that is consistent with court rulings for the last 40 years. Flag desecration is a legal activity, regardless of how disgusting the practice is to some.

The strength and virtue of our freedoms are reflected specifically by their application to the more offensive practices in our country. If these freedoms are truly worth dying for as so many of our soldiers have, surely we should not be making exceptions to them. Ones freedom to speech and expression is exponentially more important to the fabric of America than any material symbol.

[carolinablue]

The strength and virtue of our freedoms are reflected specifically by their application to the more offensive practices in our country. If these freedoms are truly worth dying for as so many of our soldiers have, surely we should not be making exceptions to them. Ones freedom to speech and expression is exponentially more important to the fabric of America than any material symbol.

Thank you for saying what I feel, but cannot put into words as well as you have.

A flag is a piece of cloth upon which are designs and colors which represent the virtues and ideals of our government. America is not the flag, not the White House, not any tangible thing; America is the idea and the dream of free men.

A flag can be burned, a monument destroyed, but the dream remains. To see someone burn the flag, walk on it or treat it disrespectfully would anger me, but I would not interfere with that person's right to free speech. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is more important, more vital to our survival as a nation than the freedom of speech.

If Shirley Phelps walks all over the flag and vomits her foul nonsense, guess what? America will still be here, unchanged, still free. We must be careful not to confuse the symbols of freedom for the real thing.

[Dneilz]

I guess I don't get how walking on an American flag is freedom of speech.

[Pete Bondurant]

This flag looks much nicer, I think.

[Athena]

I guess I don't get how walking on an American flag is freedom of speech.

"Speech" has been largely interpreted to mean "expression" - that speech is not simply the words that are spoken or written, but also the gestures and actions that may accompany or substitute it. Think "body language". By rolling my eyes or crossing my arms aggressively, I'm not speaking or writing a single word, but I am certainly conveying thoughts and/or feelings, thus qualifying it as speech of some sort - communication.

Flag desecration has, for a long time, been regarded as political expression, which has long been protected. In the 1989 SCOTUS decision, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote, "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

[Pete Bondurant]

So...these vile creatures can burn a flag....yet I cannot burn a cross?

[brokenandtwisted]

I find it amusing that people so...anti-American, live in America.

[runecire]

Flag desecration has, for a long time, been regarded as political expression, which has long been protected. In the 1989 SCOTUS decision, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. wrote, "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."

Thank you. Do you have more cites? I spent a couple hours last night reviewing 1st amendment rulings by the Supreme Court, but I could not find a decision on desecration. The closest I could come was the "fighting words" decisions which also emcompass cross-burning, Pete. It seems this situation as I quoted above would fall into this area. For most, burning the American flag would be like uttering fighting words, which ARE NOT protected by the 1st.

I agree that the right to free speech is a cornerstone of our society, and to some extent I agree that restrictions should be few and far between. It strikes a deep chord, however, to think back on all those who died to preserve our way of life going all the way back to our fight for independence. Their devotion and ultimate sacrifice is represented by Old Glory, and to desecrate it would seem no different than spitting on a soldier. To me, it seems there are some lines that should not be crossed. To say we should allow it seems self-defeating. There are times we must stand up and say "This is going too far." Express your dislike for this governement. Use radio, pamphlets, parades, or whatever you like. But don't trample on our brave dead who fought for your right to speak out.

The flag, to me, does not represent the government; it represents the country...us. When someone desecrates the flag, they desecrate us. If we won't stand for something, we'll fall for anything (to steal a line froma song). It's almost like a Catch 22. If we don't allow it, do we betray the spirit of the constitution, or do we fight to keep that spirit alive? Both are correct, depending on where you draw YOUR line.

[Aslan]

Wow
I really hope you folks don't hate me but I say let her do her little flag burning.
It changes nothing. Just as if a thief came up to me and grabbed the necklace I wear (thin with a tiny gold cross) would make me lose my faith.
It wouldn't. And if the God I believe in and try to understand is her God as well, she and the rest of her family have plenty of charges already stacked against them.
I am HUGE about supporting the military and their families.
Her family is HUGE about getting press.
Let's just stop talking about these assfaces.

[Dneilz]

Thanks Athena. It makes sense... even though I don't like it.

[Athena]

Thank you. Do you have more cites? I spent a couple hours last night reviewing 1st amendment rulings by the Supreme Court, but I could not find a decision on desecration. The closest I could come was the "fighting words" decisions which also emcompass cross-burning, Pete. It seems this situation as I quoted above would fall into this area. For most, burning the American flag would be like uttering fighting words, which ARE NOT protected by the 1st.

I'll take a look around. That About.com link I posted is pretty thorough, but I might be able to find something more specific to flag-burning.

Edit: Here's a pretty good one.

The flag, to me, does not represent the government; it represents the country...us. When someone desecrates the flag, they desecrate us. If we won't stand for something, we'll fall for anything (to steal a line froma song). It's almost like a Catch 22. If we don't allow it, do we betray the spirit of the constitution, or do we fight to keep that spirit alive? Both are correct, depending on where you draw YOUR line.

That's just it - interpretation is relative. To me, the essence of America cannot be captured by any combination of colors or decorated fabric. It's not tangible. To me, freedom represents America. The variety of ideologies living (fairly) peacefully within the same borders represents America. The flag, to me, is not terribly different from the red cloth a matador uses to draw a bull - it is a gimmick used by the government (among other institutions) to gather people under or even distract at times. To me, although I would never, the freedom to burn a flag is an exponentially more powerful symbol of America than a million undisturbed flags flying high.

As a result, the courts have ruled that flag-burning does not fall under the incitement of violence ("fighting words", as you put it). In fact, lots of things don't that you'd otherwise think might. For example, I could call a stranger's mother a whore and say all sorts of other unpleasant, aggressive things, and my speech would still be protected.

[TheMeaningOfItAll]

I agree, Athena. When I read the story, I was quite irked that these assholes are back in the news and they got their way. I am reminded of the quote by Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I may not like what they have to say, but we live in a country that allows us to express ourselves freely.

[Athena]

When I read the story, I was quite irked that these assholes are back in the news and they got their way.

Oh, me too. I'm one of those bad atheists who has a hard time respecting modern organized religion to begin with. So when I see a group of assholes taking that religion and twisting it to assault people at their lowest points (a death of a family member, a natural disaster, etc.), I see red. It can absolutely make my blood boil.

That's why this decision is so important. IS there a more hated organization (except maybe NAMBLA)? If we can uphold civil liberties even when the people exercising them are worthy of hatred, that is the measure of a strong society. The harder it is to uphold these rights, the more important it is to do so.