The Confederate Battle Flag is tearing apart the very fabric of our society. Yet many Americans are ignorant of its impact and apathetic about the need to control this menace.
Defenders of the Confederate Battle flag argue that it is part of their heritage and is not harmful and thus should not be regulated or banned. But 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing have shown the profound effects anti-American beliefs and symbols can have on human behavior.
For decades, communities have struggled to define just what symbols are so offensive as to be legally obscene, and to delineate limits on the government's ability to regulate such symbols.
Courts have ruled that speech having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox views, controversial views, even unpopular ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of public opinion -- have the full protection of the Constitution, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of allowing citizens to celebrate any act of treason against the United States as utterly without redeeming social importance.
Displaying a Confederate Battle flag is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of treason; and the symbol is utterly without redeeming social value.
While almost everyone would agree that merely categorizing of the Confederate Battle flag as "obscene" is insufficient justification for such a drastic invasion of personal liberties. Most people would discern that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what symbols he may display or worship. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. However, that man does not have the right to display that obscene symbol in plain view of the entire public, if that symbol violates community standards.
Nothing in the First Amendment requires that a jury must consider hypothetical and unascertainable "community standards" when attempting to determine whether certain symbols are obscene as a matter of fact. ... It is neither realistic nor constitutionally sound to read the First Amendment as requiring that the people residing in a city like Palm Coast accept public depiction of conduct found tolerable in rural and less sophisticated areas, such as Bunnell (where the Klan has historically had a presence).
In fact, displaying the Confederate flag in public may actually already be a crime. The U.S. Constitution reads, in pertinent part, "...treason shall consist of levying war against the U.S., adhering to its enemies..." To adhere to something means to support or hold a firm belief in. No one can seriously argue that the Confederate battle flag wasn't an enemy flag of the United States. And to display a flag is the most fundamental form of support.
Furthermore, prohibiting the display of the Confederate Battle flag within residential zones or near churches, parks, or schools is justified, and would pass constitutional muster, because it is not primarily designed to prohibit the free expression of the content of the symbols, but rather designed to reduce the "secondary effects" of publicly celebrating treason on the surrounding communities, such as increased crime and terrorism.
Can you imagine children standing in a classroom citing the "Pledge of Allegiance" and then gazing out of their classroom window and seeing a symbol that violates that pledge of allegiance?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 52
Here you can see all the Flags of the Confederacy.
You dont just have a piss fest and secede.
Kartman loves his country and already fought for it once. He's never considered himself a "Southerner" or "Floridian".
If artists are allowed to depict Christ and Mary in deplorable states under the guise of "freedom of speech" or "artistic expression", should we not extend that same "freedom of speech/expression" to those who choose to fly the Confederate flag. Or do we give special privilege to those who want to ban it?
This coin does have two sides... hmmm
I agree with you on that Nora. I think both are forms of freedom of speech and should be treated as such.
I don't have a problem with most speech. In fact, I don't have a problem with burning an American flag in protest. But to celebrate treason against your own country seems so bizarre. Tim McVeigh was known to have Confederate flags. Its an anti-American symbol.
Now having lived in Florida not too many years ago I know that this flag does mean something to many people in the South, and in parts of Alabama they will swear up and down that the South didnt lose the war the North did.
But I think banning it would make it even more of an issue.
If we're going to have something called the "Patriot Act", wouldn't it make sense to ban the celebrating of treason as part of it?
We have much much more to be worried about ... jobs, ever mounting debt to China, the direction of this nation economy, the lack of production and manufacturing, volatile problems in the Mid East, Iran/nukes, North Korea/nukes, overpopulation, pollution from China and India, you name it....
I just don't see that a 200 year old defunk army/rebel flag is that big of a deal... maybe I'm wrong....
An enemy is an enemy. Kartman doesn't care if its the Confederates, the Nazis, the Taliban, Klingons or Romulans.
The only time I get bothered is when someone flies it above the US national.
The two should not fly together. Period. They were both enemies of each other.
Granted the flag is offensive to some but since when is that standard enough to be worth the lawsuits that would come with such an attempted banning?
You cannot deny that displaying a "Confederate battle flag" is NOT celebrating the largest collective act of treason in history.
Furthermore, symbols don't become less "anti-American" over time. By that logic, how long would it be before the swastika should be accepted by people?
Nora,
How is celebrating treason not the act of a traitor? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1869 that states did not have the right to secede. When they levied arms against the United States the South committed treason.
The war began on Kartman's birthday in 1861. The Confederate battle flag disappeared after the Civil War and only reappeared during the civil rights movement. If the U.S. was kind enough to stop burning down Atlanta, Southerners should show the same courtesy and lower their flags.
Largest act of treason in history? Perhaps in US history. You might want to relook that statement. I do grant it became a symbol of racist idiots during the Civil Rights days but for many people the rebel flag has nothing to do with that group of idiots.
Yes symbols do change their significance over time. That's just considered one of the things that do happen with time. Think of the "bloody shirt", fascia, etc. No matter how you measure things, the rebel battle flag is not equal to the symbol of Nazi Germany
If an individual wants to, I think they should be able to legally, as a matter of free speech, but I think it looks rude. Some Southerners might think it looks defiant ... and I suppose that kind of things is "cool" to some. I think it also looks racist, but I bet they would argue it isn't.
There are certain things which aren't protected speech. You cannot threaten the President. Nor should you be able to celebrate treason against your own country.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, any governor who suggests their state should leave the Union should be put on a terror watch list.
On November 2 we'll see what should happen when legislators pass laws that are bad for America.
New England considered secession over the Louisiana Purchase. John Quincey Adams said The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.
Thomas Jefferson
If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying ‘let us separate’. I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.
Abraham Lincoln Before Congress in 1848
Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions, not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
So are these people traitors too?
The difference between a patriot and a traitor is whether or not you win your revolution. Our forefathers won the Revolutionary War. That made them patriots. The South lost the Civil War. That made them traitors.
You certainly are a slow learner. The United States won the Revolutionary War and the South lost the Civil War.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that a state cannot secede and the actions of a rebellious entity are "null and void."
Kartman it lookds to me that you are looking for things to be offended by. I know many people in the south who are proud of the flag for reasons you will never understand. They aren't racists, they aren't bigots and they aren't celbrating slavery.
It is interesting that the multiculturalist left, the people who say we should accept different cultures, and if we don't we are bigots, racists, xenophobes and knuckle draggers, now say we should censor and ban the Confederate Flag. Can you spell hypocrite?
That's absurd. I made a coherent argument why the flag shoulds be banned. Simply stating that I "disagree" with the Confederate Battle flag.
"Kartman it lookds to me that you are looking for things to be offended by."
Its not unsual for a combat veteran who fought for his country to be offended by people celebrating treason.
It's also not unusual for a southern veteran to feel pride in his or her southern roots. So many that chose to secede did so because the north was dictating to them how to live their lives, trying to be their masters, while saying through the other side of their mouth that slavery should be abolished. While they had the second part right, it's not that hard to understand why many southerners were fed up. They weren't being treated as part of the United States. They were being treated in many ways like the slaves or servants of those in the north with power.
I actually understand where you're coming from. I understand how you could see it as treason. But, the United States was based on those states coming together with mutual respect to form a strong union where the rights of all would be protected. When the north officially broke the spirit of that agreement by treating southerners as second class "citizens" who had no rights, the south chose to remove itself from the union.
Charles M. quoting Abraham Lincoln: "Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
Given that this quote comes from one of the best loved and most respected presidents of all time, whether you’re from the north or south, it seems you would give his thoughts a little weight.
But, if that doesn't work for you, consider this, when the Continental Congress chose to toss the Articles of Confederation, under which no state could secede unless all seceded simultaneously, and instead write the U.S. Constitution, which pointedly omitted any reference to that perpetual clause, any state could lawfully secede at any time. It was not treason. It was not an act of war. It was simply withdrawing from a union that no longer treated the south as equal to the states in the north.
An example, you ask, well here’s just one, while the south was still part of the union, the north began passing laws to tax southern imports from England, and only southern imports, heavily, to finance the industrialization of the North. And since the southerners were far outnumbered in Congress, it was essentially taxation without representation.
Without walking away from the path the north was laying from them, the south would have basically been the victim in a domestic abuse relationship. The south would be bullied mercilessly by the northern majority completely subverting the intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
So, am I suggesting slavery had no role? Of course not. It was one more “RULE” the north was trying to impose on the south. It didn’t matter than less that 5% of southerners actually owned any slaves. It didn’t matter that there were plenty of people in the north who owned slaves. What mattered was here was another example of the north telling the south what rules it was going to force them to follow.
Still, it is true, that for many the idea of a south with no slaves was scary. How could the few farmers there were handle all of the crops, most particularly the cotton crop without slaves. The economy would drastically change if slaves were freed.
Also, there are always those who see others beneath them, and were furious and indignant that someone thought they could pass a law and take their “property” away.
But, were they in the majority? Or were people who were sick of being treated unfairly and taxed horrendously in the majority?
NOT Kartman "Its important to remember that the Confederate battle flag was the symbol of an army whose sole purpose was to break-up the United States. And those who display the Confederate battle flag are celebrating the largest collective act of treason in history."
While you’ve made some good points in your arguments, you stray a bit too far when you claim the army’s sole purpose was to break-up the United States. The army didn’t come into play until after the United States had been split. And they likely would never have been involved had it not been for northern ploys to draw them into a war, which they fought to save their way of life and their families and their beloved home. No, their sole purpose was not to break up the United States.
It’s not treason to secede. It would have been treason if the south had seceded and then attempted to invade the north, but that train went the other way. Ironically, the same man who said any people had a right to shake off the existing government decided that he NEEDED to go to war with the newly seceded states. He spent months planning how to get the south to fire the first shots. Multiple attempts failed.
Meanwhile, President Jefferson Davis of the south was attempting to negotiate a treaty with the Lincoln administration, but Lincoln not only refused to meet with them, he also refused to let the secretary of state meet with them.
Finally. Lincoln was able to make progress by sending three ships to transport 500 additional Union-solders to reinforce the 86 man force at Fort Sumpter, along with munitions and other supplies. Note that at this point Fort Sumpter was in southern territory. Informed of the invasion about to take place within their territory, the south demanded the surrender of the fort, which failed. So, they bombarded it, destroying the fort and harming no life, whereupon Major Anderson surrendered with his honor intact. When the navy arrived, it was allowed to transport Anderson’s men back to the union held territories.
Southerners on that day did what most of us would do, if we were in a reasonable state of mind and not flying off the handle knowing we were about to be invaded, they defended themselves against imminent danger. It’s a legal defense: defense of self and defense of others.
Lincoln used it to start the war against the south and invade southern territories.
[Much of the foregoing information was found on a number of sites, but one in particular was “How and Why Abraham Lincoln Started the War of Northern Aggression to Protect his own Political Career” by Frank Conner.]
NOT Kartman “If we're going to have something called the "Patriot Act", wouldn't it make sense to ban the celebrating of treason as part of it?”
That sounds rather reasonable, as long as you have a distinct reliable authoritative basis for determining what is and what is not “celebrating of treason.” Defending against living the very life they left England to escape
doesn't really sound like treason, especially not when you remember that secession was not a move of aggression against the remaining states in the union. And, it was intended to be a temporary measure until issues could be resolved. However, that didn’t fit Lincoln’s plan, so rather that work out the differences and rejoin all of the states into the union, Lincoln started the Civil War.
I don’t hang the confederate flag. I don’t have a confederate flag. But I understand what most of those that do are trying to do, and celebrating treason is that last thing on their mind. They’re celebrating a history of fighting to protect your natural rights and remain free from oppression, standing up in the face of a losing battle and saying “You may take me out, but I will stand for what I believe. And I believe in the United States as written in the Constitution and signed by every state that joined the union. I want more than anything to rejoin that union, but as long as you insist on violating the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I can do nothing but wait and if attacked defend myself and mine.”
NOT Kartman “The difference between a patriot and a traitor is whether or not you win your revolution.”
Interesting definition. As you make clear when you snub someone who does not immediately submit to your interpretation, you seem to believe this concept fairly strongly. I ask only that you tell me where I can find it. What dictionary? What encyclopedia? What history book?
And if you are right, then it’s simply sad, because you have essentially said you can never enter a military action believing in your whole heart that you are serving your country and protecting it from foreign aggressors without having to wonder, “Am I a patriot? Or a traitor?” If my side wins, great, I’m a patriot. But, what if I fought to save lives, to protect my family and my loved ones, to ensure my country was not invaded and overrun by foreign aggressors, and through no fault of my own, my country is taken over and we are forced to submit? I proudly risked my life for all I hold dear, and now, thanks to NOT Kartman, I know I am a traitor.” Heartbreaking.
The problem is that the heritage is anti-American. If the South had won the war, they would no longer be part of this great country. And to fly the flag is tantamount to saying you don't want to be an American.