Virtual flagburning and the "Flag Amendment
Matthew Gaylor
From: "Edward Hasbrouck" <ehasb...@igc.apc.org>
Organization: Travel Time
To: dca...@eff.org, edy...@eff.org, bar...@eff.org, s...@well.sf.ca.us,
free...@coil.com
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 04:10:46 +0000
Subject: virtual flagburning and the "Flag Amendment"
Reply-to: ehasb...@igc.apc.org
Priority: normal
Sender: ehasb...@igc.org
Because one of the main expressions of opposition to the Flag
Consecration Amendment (which is to be voted on Tuesday) has
become the "burning" of "virtual" flags on the Flagburning page,
I appeal to you for any assistance you may be able to give in
publicizing the imminence of the threat this amendment poses.
Sincerely,
Edward Hasbrouck
-----------
[for immediate release -- please post]
Victors in Supreme Court Flag-Burning Cases Denounce Attempt
to Overturn Supreme Court Decisions and the First Amendment;
Predict Wide Resistance to "Flag Amendment"
Joey Johnson 213-368-6778
Edward Hasbrouck 415-824-0214
http://www.indirect.com/user/warren/flag/hasbrouck.htm
ehasb...@igc.apc.org
(9 December 1995)
Spokespeople for the victors in the 1989 and 1990 Supreme
Court flagburning decisions today denounced the proposal for a
"Flag Consecration Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution and
predicted that the Amendment would prompt widespread resistance.
"As people become aware of this amendment and what it
threatens, the amendment will engender more protest and defiance
of the government and its symbols, not less," according to a
joint statement by the defendant in the first Supreme Court
flagburning case and one of the principal organizers of the
defense coalitions for the flagburners.
Gregory "Joey" Johnson (the defendant in the Supreme Court
case which the Flag Amendment is intended to overturn) and
Edward Hasbrouck (who was an organizer and lobbyist for the
Emergency Committee to Stop the Flag Amendment and Laws), said
that outlawing expressions of dissent will only further discredit
the U.S. government.
"This Amendment will inspire more people to hold the U.S.
government in contempt," Johnson and Hasbrouck predicted. "The
largest wave of flagburnings in U.S. history came in response to
the attempts to outlaw flagburning in 1989 and 1990. Those who
support this Amendment must be prepared to lock up thousands of
people who will defend their freedom by defying this Amendment."
Senate floor debate on the Flag Consecration Amendment began
Wednesday, 12/6/95, and a Senate vote is currently scheduled for
Tuesday, 12/12/95. The House has already approved the Amendment,
and is likely to approve any changes by the Senate.
"The proponents of this Amendment claim the support of the
public, but they are trying to avoid real public debate on the
first-ever repeal of any part of the Bill of Rights," said
Hasbrouck. "The more people learn about this Amendment, the
more they oppose it. Some people dismiss this Amendment as a
cynical game by politicians wrapping themselves in the flag. But
this is no joke. This is a real attack on the right to dissent."
Hasbrouck said the low visibility of grassroots opposition
to the Amendment results partly from low awareness of how close
it is to passage, and partly from new but important forms which
opposition is taking, such as the Flag-Burning Page on the
Internet (http://www.indirect.com/user/warren/flag.html), which
most politicians haven't noticed.
Johnson characterized the flag amendment as "a fascist
amendment, because it gives the flag only one permissible meaning
and gives the government the power to punish those who says it
means something else. There's all this talk of who the amendment
is 'for', but who is it against? Congress wants to give a new
dynamism to a sick and dying empire by attacking especially the
poor, Black and Latino people, women, immigrants, the sick, the
elderly, and even veterans, while at the same time demanding that
we respect the government, its institutions and its symbols."
---------
[from the Congressional Record]
FLAG DESECRATION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
(Senate - December 08, 1995)
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the following
amendments be the only amendments in order to Senate Joint
Resolution 31, and they must be offered and debated during
Monday's session of the Senate: McConnell, relevant substitute;
Hatch, two relevant amendments; Biden, relevant; Feinstein,
relevant; Hollings, two relevant amendments.
<p>I further ask that at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, December 12, there be
1 hour 40 minutes for closing debate, to be equally divided in
the usual form, and the votes occur on or in relation to the
amendments beginning at 2:17 p.m., with the first vote limited to
the standard 15 minutes and all remaining stacked votes limited
to 10 minutes in length, with 2 minutes for debate prior to the
votes for explanation to be equally divided in the usual form.
I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition
of the amendments, the joint resolution be read for a third time
and a final vote occur immediately without any intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MACK. In light of this agreement, there will be no
rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate and any
votes ordered with respect to amendments and the final vote will
occur beginning at 2:17 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 1995.
_____
"Our greatest fear is that the Internet will become a vehicle
of free distribution of information." Ken Wasch, President,
Software Publisher Association, Wall Street Journal, 6 Sep. 1995
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TANSTAAFL
Columbus, OH
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++