During Fourth of July, a young man in Illinois celebrated the holiday by burning the U.S. flag. Bryton Mellot posted pictures of it on Facebook, which have been met with both praise and criticism.
This flag-burning resulted in local police arresting the 22-year-old for -- not violating a law. The Urbana Police Department arrested Mollot on the night of the holiday Independence Day and charged him with flag desecration and disorderly conduct.
"I am not proud to be an American," wrote Mellott, in a Facebook post. "In this moment, being proud of my country is to ignore the atrocities committed against people of color, people living in poverty, people who identify as women, and against my own queer community on a daily basis." The post was accompanied with #betterburnthatflag.
Though the flag-burner was released later on that night, the police are still being questioned in public opinion. In both Supreme Court cases, 1989's Texas v. Johnson and 1990's United States v. Eichman, burning the flag is protected free speech.
The U.S. constitution does not allow the federal government to ban the burning of any flag. While it is questionable whether or not the first amendment applies to the states, there are supreme court cases that rule the bill of rights also apply to the states.
In his opinion, concurring with the 5-4 majority in Texas v. Johnson, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote "Though symbols often are what we ourselves make of them, the flag is constant in expressing beliefs Americans share, beliefs in law and peace and that freedom which sustains the human spirit. The case here today forces recognition of the costs to which those beliefs commit us. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."
The irony Justice Kennedy pointed out, is people claiming the flag stands for freedom, but then violate the freedom of those who oppose a symbol the former believes in. As common sense dictates, hurt feelings and strong opinions do not justify violating the freedoms the U.S. claims to protect.
Urbana Police Sgt. Andrew Charles told Forbes that free speech should be protected, but that "It’s when you say things that are inciteful and make it clear that you are associated with someone that doesn’t share your ideas; it got raised to a level where a reasonable person there would fear for their safety. It’s similar to yelling fire in a movie theater."
What Andrew Charles and his department does not or refuses to understand is, yelling "fire" in a movie theater is based on property rights. A movie theater will have rules against this because they would protect their business. The government has no place being involved.
The Urbana Police Department issued this in a press release defending the charge of disorderly conduct, "Given the volume of responses and specificity of threat against his place of employment (a location where an act of violence would likely cause harm to others) prompted police involvement in this case."
Even if this justification made sense, the arrests should be placed against anyone who would violate his freedom. Arresting a flag-burner to protect him against violence is Orwellian speak, and the police department should know better. Following this logic, the police should arrest victims of mugging to prevent them from being mugged.
According to UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, "the court has made clear since 1949 that the government can’t punish someone for 'disorderly conduct' simply because his speech offends people and leads some of them to threaten violent retaliation."
Ironically, according to the law, the police department violated the legal and natural rights of an individual simply because of "patriotism." As Oscar Wilde identified, patriotism is for the vicious. It teaches you to hate people you do not understand, to take pride in accomplishments you had no part of, and to be emotional about the country/government you were born or live under. This is nationalist nihilism.
Patriotism has no respect for law, only a manifestation of the pathos appeal. When the U.S. founding generation were called patriots, they fought a war for independence over being taxed a little bit, having poor representation in government, and their privacy violated. Today, those who call themselves patriots stand idle while they get taxed a lot, government grows with little regard to the will of the people, and privacy is scarce under a police state.
The U.S. founders decried the very overreach conservatives and liberals call for. Good patriotism is dead if it ever existed. Nationalist nihilism, or in the U.S. it is called "American exceptionalism," is a cancer that always brings governments to their knees. Kind of ironic.
If your feelings got hurt because of someone burning their own property, you might need a safe space that conservatives say liberals need. It sounds like both groups need it. If the U.S. is really the land of the free and home of the brave, then start acting like it - you do not have a right to other peoples' life, liberty, or property, no matter how hurt your feelings or how strong your opinion.
"I want to thank each and every one of you for stopping by the page to show support or to voice your opinion," the victim of death threats wrote on July 5th. "I understand why some of you disagree, but why fight for rights that we never put to use?"
