Press Ignores ACLU Flip-Flop on Flag Controversy

The controversy started when a Mexican bar owner in Reno Nevada flew the Mexican flag above that of the United States. This is illegal under United States Code Section 7, Title Four.  An insulted and offended American veteran, Jim Brossard, felt he had to take action and cut down both flags.  After much controversy in blogs and media, the ACLU released a statement urging the media to "correct the misinformation that it is illegal" to fly foreign flags over the U.S. flag. The MSM ignored the obvious contradictions in the ACLU position.  The following is from the ACLU's released statement.

However, we urge the media to take the opportunity to correct misinformation, especially about our rights and the criminal law.

The media is a powerful tool in informing the public, and this is an opportunity to tell the world that the First Amendment is alive and well, and protects everyone's right to fly whatever flag they wish on their property.

CNN apparantly got that memo, along with many media outlets. However, they seem to have ignored the contradiction of the ACLU's flag positions.

The American Civil Rights Union points out the flip-flop:

Jim Broussard explained his action by saying, “I took this flag down in honor of my country with a knife from the U.S. Army. I’m not going to see this happen to my country. I want to see someone fight me for this flag.”

The Reno police recognized that the flag display in this case was wrong. But they took the position that the US flag code is “advisory” because it has no “criminal enforcement requirements.”

The ACLU entered the fray, against the position of the veteran. In a statement the Nevada ACLU said, “If the federal flag rules were mandatory, they would clearly violate the First Amendment, which protects every American’s right to speak and express themselves, including their choice of flag to display.”

The ACLU had the chutzpah to add this, “In 1989, the Supreme Court held that we even have the right to burn our own flag.” In that case, the ACLU got the US Supreme Court to rule by a narrow margin that it is freedom of speech for an American to burn an American flag.

Let’s assume that is true. What is the message in burning a US flag? Does it mean “I hate America”? Or, “I hate Americans”? Well, what would be the message if this veteran had not merely rescued the US flag from misuse, but had removed and burned the Mexican flag? His real message was “I respect America.” But had he destroyed the Mexican flag, would it have meant, “I hate Mexico”? Or, “I hate Mexicans”?

The ACLU defends the destruction of the American flag, for the message it conveys. On the other hand, in this case, they are protecting the Mexican flag from disrespect.

ACRU does make a good philosophical point about the ACLU’s position that the American flag may be burned, but the Mexican flag must be respected. I wonder if this position explains the ACLU’s relative silence on behalf of the students in this case. Gotta “respect” the flags of terrorist organizations I guess?

I wonder how the media missed the contradictions right in front of their noses.