May 5, 1999

In order to defend the foremost symbol of freedom, the American flag, proponents of this amendment are prepared to diminish freedom itself.

For more than two centuries, our Bill of Rights has guarded individual liberties against the awesome power of government. It has been the blueprint for freedom around the world, as other societies seek to establish and emulate the democratic traditions they so admire here.

And now, with the Cold War won and liberty blossoming in soil once ruled by tyranny, Congress is considering a proposal to trim back the Bill of Rights for the first time in our history and give itself the power to punish offensive speech.

What urgent national interest demands that America turn even slightly away from its singular heritage of freedom and liberty? Is it public order? Does violence against the flag create a climate of physical violence, even chaos among the public as a whole?

No, it does not. Even the proponents of this amendment cite only a handful of flag-burning and other disrespectful acts each year, and those episodes hardly constitute a pressing threat to public order. Thirty years ago, this country weathered a thunderstorm of political turmoil and civil unrest. These current acts of flag-desecration cannot begin to test our democratic resilience and resolve.

To the contrary, this amendment would likely encourage the very acts it seeks to punish. Criminal prosecution would provide the attention that those who set the flag on fire most crave.

Is common decency, then, the reason to erode the liberties established by the Bill of Rights? Does even a single act of flag-burning so offend the patriotic spirit that we must outlaw this particular expression?

Such disrespect does offend all who honor the values the flag symbolizes and the heroic sacrifices made defending them. But offensive speech comes in many varieties beyond desecration of the flag. Is flag desecration a special category of speech, clearly more hateful than other brands of offensive expression?

Does the person who sets fire to a flag, for example, clearly do greater damage to the public good than the person who advocates racism or other bigotry? And if not, how will the rest of us know where to stop, once we start putting limits on the things that may be said and defining some ideas that cannot find voice?

That is the great threat posed by this amendment, a threat that far exceeds the harm it is supposed to prevent. The occasional act of disrespect for the American flag creates but a flickering insult to the values of democracy – unless it provokes America into limiting the freedoms that are its hallmark.

The architects of the Constitution were themselves veterans of a war that began as a revolution against the power of government. To guarantee the liberties for which they risked everything, those authors of America drafted the Bill of Rights, and they put the freedom of expression first.

After more than 200 years, we must not diminish their enduring promise of freedom by putting this footnote on the First Amendment.

Paul C. Tash, Chair
Freedom of Information Committee
St. Petersburg Times, Florida