Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 5, 1998)
0 am he Battalion Opi inion Page 11 • Monday, October 5, 1998 Stars and stripes forever SymboVs protection requires death of liberty ar.A be« L lu.S.' 31 I A. DAVID JOHNSTON 5Y! s the mem- of the Con- ■ begin con- jntrating less on fiislation and iv H on eam- ■s. the Amer- • • Mpeople have ^itior/okkd martial wonce again. i Hhen this legislative session representatives again dis- Isetl the merits of prohibiting l iitizens from burning Ameri- Bags. Fleg-burning bans have been iuted before, but never with .uclh success. The Supreme '■l Ht ruled laws prohibiting flag Hng violated the Constitution, ) legislators have suggested al- rag the nation’s governing doc- | Kt in order to amend the free- tms it defines. Hnericans have always en- pd tremendous freedom. Rush ■augh has 15 hours every | Hto chastise the president’s ■listration. Even during times war, citizens have been al- H to protest and speak out . Hst their leaders, j-p. Some politicians believe it is ■to change everything. The flag is a powerful symbol th^ United States. Americans ive penned tributes to the ban- |r,sjung songs about it and died rit Old Glory’s design is rich ith meaning. In a single design ■esents the great nation. The nation founded on liberty. , Just as the flag is the most If iwerful symbol of the country, Kning flag is the most pow- ■symbol of free expression a freedom guaranteed in the of Rights. tericans are allowed several k of demonstration against jovernment. Certainly some [tt expression is more offen- han other forms. Protesters Bing clever rhymes outside T BWhite House are clearly less Bent than a pamphlet de- <ni(™ cing ^ ie res ‘d ents 1600 Hsylvania Avenue. Prohibiting the burning of flags \ Bhis particular form of ex- Bion is too offensive to toler- lUnfortunately, this is an arbi- ■standard. Future lawmakers ■move the standard. Someday lead of banning only flag burn ast n ing. Congress may prohibit burn ing maps of the country or images of the Statue of Liberty. A flag-burning amendment would amount to bad law. Its en forcement would be next to im possible. The flag is a symbol, and there is no clear definition of a flag. Protesters would begin burn ing scraps of cloth with 12 stripes or yellow stars trying to skirt the ban. Clothing stores are stocked with outfits resembling the Star- Spangled Banner, and a flag-burning amendment would need to address such items. The more com plex a law, the greater the over head required to implement it. The First Amendment — the one promis ing free speech and the exercise thereof — is only 45 words long. The language nec essary for a flag burning amend ment would run hundreds or thou sands of words. This sort of bu reaucratic jargon begs for challenges and loopholes. This is not the sort of thing to put in the Constitution, the foundational document of the government. Constitutions have simple, broad guidelines, with the understanding that anything vio lating those broad guidelines is unac ceptable. The Supreme Court has estab lished flag-burning bans violate the Constitutional boundaries of gov ernment. The Supreme Court has determined a prohibition on flag burning would trample the rights of Americans. Of course the American flag evokes strong emotions among those who care about the country but the freedoms unique to the United States are exactly what motivate those feelings. By trying to protect the nation al symbol, politicians will destroy it. As the flag becomes sacred and untouchable, it will no longer stand for freedom, but oppres sion. Protection of liberty some times requires the tolerance of the unsavory. Freedom does not come with a manual describing its recommended use, and regu lated liberty is not truly liberty. Flag evokes emotion, deserves special status F lag burning is an issue even more divisive than the Clinton scandal. The proposed amendment to ban flag burning has fallen by the wayside in Con- gress’ final days. The debate over flag burning has two rival sides. The first side is opposed to a ban on flag burn JOSH MASKOW A legal prohibition of flag burning will set a terrible prece dent that could end anywhere. Removing liberty is nothing other than martial law. Dave Johnston is a senior mathematics major. ing. They decry such an amend ment as an unconstitutional re striction of free speech. Opponents view flag burning as another expression of speech protected by the First Amend ment. Such opponents think flag burning is another form of protest. This protest is supposed to be a symbolic act of their dissatisfac tion with the U.S. People with no legitimate inter est feel obligated to take an unin formed stance on the issue. Their argument is simple and to the point: an individual should be able to do anything he wants to the flag regardless of conse quences. They see no problem with the destruction of a simple piece of cloth. These opponents see the American flag as nothing more than a personal possession that can be disposed of at will. Flag burning is seen as no more illegal or wrong than burning paper or clothes. Oppo nents of the ban think that such expression is clearly protected by the First Amendment as free speech. This argument, though persuasive, is obviously flawed. The flag is a symbol unlike any other. Old Glory is far from just a piece of cloth. It is America’s emblem. If anything represents the U.S. at home and abroad, it is our Ameri can flag. The flag is proudly waved at em bassies and parades in every foreign country. For some reason, Palestinians and Irani ans seem to know this with more certainty than Americans. Most anti-American protests in these countries prominently feature the torching of the U.S. flag as a spiteful act. This testifies that the most readily available sym bol representing Ameri ca is the flag. Secondly, the Ameri can flag signifies the nation’s strug gles. Throughout the years, it has led American legions into battle for American ideals. It is uniquely American in de sign just like the democracy. The flag represents over 200 years of tradition and bravery. Regardless of any factional conflicts, come time for unity, the flag was a tra ditional rallying point. This is why oaths are sworn to the flag. It is the definitive symbol of our ideals. The Stars and Stripes are an American badge of courage. The free speech objection can be easily dismissed. Freedom of speech means that even if others do not agree with or like what you say, they will allow you to say it. In return, they ask for the same re spect from fellow Americans. This right must, however, not be abused. It is disrespectful to veterans and citizens if an Ameri can flag is flown in a disrespectful manner or burned. If it were not for those flags, those freedoms would not exist. Any soldier who has been overseas can explain how lucky Americans are. There is a difference between free speech and obscenity. Ob scenity is rightfully outlawed. Ob scene actions or words are banned because they are not cov ered by the First Amendment. Flag burning is just such an act. Few actions will rile up a patriotic American like burning a flag. The flag reminds Americans of all that once what was once good with America, and could be again. It is part of the nation’s rich history. Flag burning is in deed an incitement to violence and an obscene act. Flag burning profanes the democratic institu tions that it represents. Any action that disrespects America in such an extreme man ner cannot remain legal. Respect is not given, but it is earned. Respect for the flag was earned by 200 years of patriots fighting and dying for American ideals and the American people. The flag is a monument to those soldiers and civilians who gave their lives to protect the country this generation inherits. It is every American’s responsi bility as guardians of the national history to insure “that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Josh Maskow is a sophomore computer science major. Clinton coverage examines pertinent issues, exploits scandal CALEB McDANIEL isl I I yrany Americans »/l owe the media a IVXpartial apology.' during recent lonths, journalists ■s the country have feed Washington’s 'val Office intrigues in ■dating detail, and |e public has scorned ecause of it. ; Believing President Clinton’s repeated pals of any improper relationship with lonica Lewinsky, many Americans fel reporters to keep their ever-intru- ive noses out of the White House. The kes of Wolf Blitzer and Sam Donaldson fere burned in effigy for journalism’s ompulsive obsession with the scandal. Apparently, though, “a prophet has i0honor in his own country.” President inton’s llth-hour confession that he as lying all along has largely vindicat ed the media’s coverage of the Lewin sky matter. What had appeared to be a piece of yellow journalism turned out to be a viable story. The free press had performed a valuable service to the public by exposing a real scandal. And all was well. Sort of. After patting themselves on their col lective backs for their good investiga tive reporting, journalists have since turned to stories on the scandal ranging from the relatively irrelevant to the ridiculously inane. Imagining a great public demand for coverage of the scandal, media moguls are operating on an entirely unfounded rule: as long as a headline includes the word, “Lewinsky,” the story that follows must be newsworthy. Such thinking has spawned a series of stories that have been abysmally con trived and totally useless. For instance, almost daily, CNN runs a piece spotlighting how some sector of so ciety is responding to the scandal. Fifteen minutes of airtime might be devoted to reporting how the African- American community feels about Clin ton’s crisis. Or why Arkansas residents have reacted negatively. Or how dairy farmers believe the scandal will affect Clinton. After a short commercial break, viewers might be treated to a discussion of how former presidential pets assess damage done to the presidency. None of these stories matter to the public, nor should they. Public opinion in this case should concern itself solely with Clinton’s prudential character or lack thereof. A person’s race, occupa tion or hometown should not be rele vant to his or her opinion. So the media should not insist on connecting extrane ous facts to the Lewinsky scandal just for the sake of making a story. Pulling reports out of the blue is ex pected of tabloids and pulp papers, but it should not be allowed among respon sible news organizations. Sensationalism has always been jour nalism’s original sin. As G.K. Chesterton once pithily observed, “It is the one great weakness of journalism as a picture of our modern existence, that it must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions.” This weakness, of course, is unavoid able. Newspapers cannot run headlines like, “Mr. Jones Visits the Grocery Store,” or “Mrs. Smith Still Alive.” They must in stead concern themselves with the excep tions to the ordinary rule. However, coverage of exceptions can go too far. Anyone who has watched a local newscast on TV understands how this works. Of the 30 minutes devoted to local news shows, usually about 30 seconds address what the audience re ally considers “news.” The rest is about reshman senator leeks feedback Jowdy, Ags. My name is Trent pllier and I have been given the Dr of serving Texas A&M Univer- ias one of the five freshman ■tors in the Student Senate. During my campaign, I promised a platform based on ■sty— specifically, no un- Pasonable campaign promises. Vhat I did guarantee was to rep ent the freshman class to the [test of my abilities. In order to perform that task Adequately, you need a way to I'each me. You may contact me by phone At847-1714 or by e-mail at frc6829@acs.tamu.edu. be in my room at my desk ery Tuesday and Thursday from 3 MAIL CALL to 4:30 p.m. if you would like to call or meet with me in person. I encourage everyone on cam pus, especially the freshmen, to take an active role in the growth and improvement of Texas A&M. I was elected for just that. I am waiting for your input. Trent Collier Class of ’02 Pro-life pamphlet offends readers We feel that the biased inclu sion of a pro-life advertising sup plement in The Battalion displayed poor judgment. Ideally, journalism should pre sent facts about both sides of the issue. The pro-life advertise ment should have been balanced by a similar pro-choice one. Alycia F. Schwendeman Class of ’01 Accompanied by 10 signatures Ci^ot mentioned m 1 HERE.CWAT 8EToo ItfiFORTMT some non-injury car accident, or this or that garden show, or some citizen’s missing cat. Anything is fair game for small-town journalists. Of course, hometown journalism is not an inherently bad thing. Local papers and news teams are expected to cover lo cal news. They serve a specific public. But the same drift towards inoccuous coverage is occurring on the national level. And this is disappointing. Think ing Americans have inquiring minds, but they do not want to know whether Linda TTipp wore lipstick yesterday or what Christian Slater makes of the Clin ton mess. Instead, the public will be glad when the media returns to covering real news and stops milking the scandal for stories that were simply not meant to be. Caleb McDaniel is a sophomore history major. ITO£Li)cKJdKh The Battalion encourages letters to the ed itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in clude the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: batt@tamvml.tamu.edu
