Recent events have caused Iowans to suspect that the Iowa Code on flag desecration may be too vague.

U.S. District Judge Robert W. Pratt, of Des Moines, struck down the case last week charging two Iowa men for flag desecration.

The two offenders, Dale Klyn of Corydon and Scott Wayne Roe of Ottumwa, had charges separately brought on them – Klyn had flown his flag upside down to protest bankruptcy and insufficient mental health care for Iraq veterans and Roe had written “corruption of blood” on a flag to protest.

Pratt declared the Iowa flag laws unconstitutional because of the vagueness of the wording. He concluded the cases had violated the due process clause because the law must be clear enough for someone to know whether an act is illegal or not.

The due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

Civil rights advocate groups have filed suits to get the laws changed. In response, members of both political parties have vowed to change the law.

James Hutter, associate professor of political science, agrees that in this case the Iowa Code does seem too vague, and that laws were created to let people know what they’re permitted to do or not do.

“One of the basic tenets of the law for hundreds of years – going back way before the U.S. – is that a law must tell a person what they can or cannot do,” Hutter said. “If the law is too ambiguous, then the courts are likely to say that it is unenforceable, [although] courts have regularly ruled that someone doing something to a flag is illegal.”

Hutter said these acts of protest are simply acts to get media attention, which is what lay at the heart of the freedom of protest.

“There is no point in burning the flag without doing it to get the press,” he said.

He also said the freedoms of redress, protest, speech and free press give people the right to stand on a soapbox and gain attention for their cause.

Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, said the premise this case comes to the point of unconstitutionality.

“Pratt found that the limited holding of the statutes are so vague that they violate the due process clause,” Stone said.

He said the language of the code is so vague that people don’t know what to do. Stone also suspected this case infringes on citizen’s free speech rights.

“The local police used flag statutes that have never been enforced – when you see things like flags on cars, clothing, magnets and on cars, everything except on a pole – and the police wanted to intimidate a political dissenter,” Stone said.