Flag Burning

Courtnnie Booker
Professor : Jeanne Daningburg
Writing & Research 102-03 September 20, 2010
Flag Burning: Agree/Disagree Paper Flag burning is usually a controversial issue. Many Americans believe that our flag is an important symbol that should not be desecrated, while others believe that flag burning is a statement that one should be able to make without major repercussions. Both sides have a legitimate argument; although I am neither for nor against burning of the flag, I believe that the right should not be taken away. Luke Saginaw, student author of “Why Flag-Burning Should Not Be Permitted,” favors a constitutional amendment that would outlaw flag-burning. Saginaw argues that flag burning is not speech at all but conduct of the sort that is often illegal. Because the flag symbolizes what so many have died to protect, Americans have deep emotional attachments to it. Thus, flag burning is not political speech but instead an attack upon Americans feelings about the flag. An assault that Saginaw deems as non-permissible. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech; according to Saginaw desecration of a flag is not considered speech by any reasonable definition. He goes on to define the meaning of speech as the coherent use of words, and I agree with that statement. However I believe that speech can come in a variety of forms. For example people who communicate through sign language use their hands to communicate words. The motions of their hands and arms, therefore creates a symbol for a particular word. Saginaw argues that the Constitution does not guarantee all kinds of conduct including conduct that is “self expressive,” and I agree because conduct such as public nudity is not protected under the constitution. However Saginaw's context in which he uses these analogies is extremely farfetched. For example Dancing on a veteran’s grave is to extreme an example in relation to flag burning. Saginaw could have linked freedom of expression to the desecration of a flag during soldier’s memorials. Therefore he would have had a more powerful analogy. Saginaw uses pathos to appeal to his audience throughout his writing. This draws the readers’ attention to his piece. He doesn’t over use loaded language in his essay, but enough to show his patriotism for his country. However Saginaw continues to over use emotional appeal throughout his writing. He should have established a medium between pathos and factual information to create a more durable case. Saginaw cites two resources throughout the paper. The first source was the Texas vs. Johnson case. Readers can tell that is a reputable case. His problem occurs when he begins to cite his information from unreliable sources. The first quotation was cited from a source called “Carroll” and was connected to “Humpty Dumpty” and “Alice in Wonderland.” The quote weakened Saginaw's argument, while derailing his reader from this main point. Lastly Saginaw states a statistic that states, “At least 70 percent of people of the United States support the law” (25). When he sites this source he states that it came from various polls. This is not very convincing or informative at all. Readers are unaware as to how many, which polls, or even if the poles are reputable. The information is powerful but the sources Saginaw uses are unreliable, therefore weakening his argument. The issue of flag burning will continue to be debated. Saginaw's essay appeared to be strong on the surface, but when truly examined carefully it failed in many categories Americans clearly have invested highly emotionally charged values with the flag. Although flag burning is hardly likely to threaten the flag’s symbolic value forbidding flag burning will surely diminish the flag’s principles.

Reference:
Saginaw, L. (2007). Why flag burning should not be permitted. S, Barnet. H, Bedau. (Eds.) , Current Issues & Enduring Questions (24). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin