I disagree very strongly with the notion expressed by Michael Buss on July 20 that the flag protection amendment (FPA) does not limit free speech.

To say that the Supreme Court has forced us to accept anything is disingenuous.ÿ

The Supreme Court has forced Americans to accept flag desecration in exactly the same sense that it has forced us to accept the KKK, Rev. Phelps’s anti-gay extremists, the Libertarian Party, Britney Spears and the New York Times.ÿ

All are protected under the First Amendment.ÿ

The First Amendment protects even non-verbal expressive acts, such as wearing black armbands in protest (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1968).

Indeed, it is the very fact that flag burning is a non-verbal form of political expression that demands that an amendment, rather than a law, be passed to ban it.

Every Flag Day, the American Legion performs a ceremony in which flags that have become too worn or soiled to be flown are properly disposed of by burning.ÿ

Not even the strongest proponents of the FPA would advocate banning burning flags as a respectful means of disposal.ÿ

Such a ban, if the FPA were passed, would target only those who would burn a flag in protest against the government.

So despite what Michael Buss says, the flag protection amendment isn’t about protecting the flag.ÿ

It’s about giving the state the right to make it a crime for an individual to burn the flag with the intent to show disrespect.ÿ

It’s about giving the state the right to restrict protest, a right which our founding fathers considered so important that they protected it twice under the First Amendment: as an act of free speech, and as a petition for redress of grievances.

As an American, it deeply saddens me that any fellow citizen would be willing to sell our First Amendment rights so cheaply.ÿ

We cannot protect the flag as a symbol of our republic by tarnishing the Constitution for which our flag stands.

Mark Anstrom

Alumnus

Madison, Wis.