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.

—John Stephenson is editor of Stop The ACLU.

Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It gets to the point when

It gets to the point when you can guess the ACLU and media's position on a controversy by knowing it will be the opposite of what every instinct in your body tells you is decent and right.

well if this goes the usual

well if this goes the usual route of court fights it will wind up in the nineth district federal court which will up hold it and then to the supreme court which will strike it down as his version of freedom of speech (which is, not to see the mexican flag flown above the american flag in the united states of america.)

ding dong.

 

 

Might as well change....

....its name to the Mexican-American Civil Liberties Union.

A very big Contradiction

John,

The ACLU has taken a position contradicts many of its arguments in cases against the government.

For if one contends that a statute without criminal sanctions is merely advisory, then the President is under no obligation to follow that statute.

That means most of their Patriot Act litigation goes away.

Hunh?

I despise the ACLU for being the neo-leftist tool that it is and not the objective defender of the Constitution that it should be.

However, to call this a "flip-flop" is patently dishonest. It strikes me as Hannity-esque fast-talk and distortion.

It's very simple. This is a property issue. This "Mexican bar owner" was flying (ON HIS PROPERTY) a flag (WHICH WAS HIS PROPERTY).

The knife-wielding "patriot" engaged in TRESPASS, VANDALISM, and THEFT in order to make his point. The last time I've checked, this is illegal. This makes him a criminal.

Also, this bar-owner was making a political point (again, with PRIVATE PROPERTY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY). Our system, as it stands currently, allows this. Government interference of this would be unconstitutional. Citizen interference of this would be criminal.

A stinking hippy buying a flag (becoming his property), and burning it on his land.. same thing.

The ACLU is NOT being inconsistent here.

You don't have to lie and distort in order to win arguments with neo-liberal morons (redundant statement). It's really not that hard.

AHEM, in the flag burning

AHEM, in the flag burning case of 1989, the hippy defendent STOLE the flag from a hotel and THEN burned it. So, if you will, he was guilty of TRESSPASS, VANDALISM, and THEFT. didnt stop the ACLU then.

Remember the guy who tried to light an American Flag during

a recent televised ball game?  A fan jumped down and "stole" the flag from him.   Nothing from the ACLU. 

In cases where the flag is being abused (and yes, flying it subsurvient to the Mexican flag was abusing it), as far as I'm concerned, it's proper to "rescue" the flag.  I would.

Who's lying?

The problem was that the Mexican flag was on top of the American flag. So maybe it wasnt this guy's place to correct it. But sombody should, whether it be police or local reps. Crap like this is insulting regaurdless of who's property it is on. They could had just left the Stars and Bars off of the pole to, but maybe it wasnt insulting enough for them.

BTW the ACLU need to remove "American" from their name, they are anything but.

re; Who's lying?

While you express my sentiments exactly. The sad fact is....

"The code is the guide for all handling and display of the Stars and Stripes.
It does not impose penalties for misuse of the United States Flag. That is left to
the states and to the federal government for the District of Columbia. Each state has it's own flag law."

About the US Flag Code http://www.usflag.or...

But regardless how hard I try, I can find no "flag law" for the State of Navada.

Another sad fact is, I figure broad respect for and pride in the Stars and Stripes, let alone our own Homeland is going to take some serious social engineering. And I think that's going to take parents instilling it in young children, which means generations.

 

I'm no fan of the ACLU, but

I'm no fan of the ACLU, but isn't the difference in this particular case pretty obvious?  This guy cut down a flag that wasn't his and wasn't on his property.  If this guy bought a Mexican flag and burned it and the ACLU cried foul then I could see the contradiction.  Now I just saw the previous post.  Exactly.

be careful bacher, your

be careful bacher, your argument smacks of logic, not emotion.

No laws against being an a**hole

The wording in the law says "should" not "will". Also there is no mention of any penalties for not abiding it.

Let's not get like some liberals who feel they have to eliminate anything and everything that can be construed as "offensive".

I would be outraged if this happened at a government facility but as others have pointed out it was private property.

You can show your disagreement with said property owner by not giving him your business and giving him a one finger salute as you drive past.

US Code says this

"(g) When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace."

If the owner really wanted to jsut show his Mexican pride, he could have chosen to follow the above paragraph - and interesting to note - it's also international protocol. 

As for private property the code says this "No person shall display the flag of the United Nations or any other national or international flag equal, above, or in a position of superior prominence or honor to, or in place of, the flag of the United States at any place within the United States or any Territory or possession thereof:" 

The man did trespass on private property, and destroyed private property. Any charges he gets *should* stem only from those issues - and the ACLU, if they were rational people, would see that.

  

As much as I dislike the ACLU

I spent 20 years in the Navy. My job dealt with Flag Protocol and the US Flag Code. As much as I dislike the ACLU, they are in a sense right on this.

US Flag Code is NEVER enforced. It really cannot be. There are violations of US Flag Code each and every day. When I see problems, I take a copy of the flag code to the business owner and politiely point out what they are doing wrong.