In a move that has surprised free speech supporters on both the left and the right, Hillary Clinton has agreed to co-sponsor a bill banning flag burning in particular circumstances. She says she still opposes a constitutional amendment that bans flag burning, but this bill does not indicate a very strong support of free speech on her part.

NY 1 reports:

Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it a crime to destroy a flag on federal property, intimidate anyone by burning a flag or burning someone else’s flag.

Let’s see... burning someone else’s flag is already a crime if they don’t permit it. I assume that the law wouldn’t criminalize burning someone else’s flag even if they gave permission, so that part is pointless. Intimidating someone by burning a flag is almost certainly unconstitutionally vague; otherwise, there are already laws about threatening people with dangerous objects. So that part is either illegal or pointless.

This leaves just the ban on burning flags on federal property, a likely location of protests where burning a flag might occur. That’s the real target of the law, I think: to make flag burning illegal in as many anti-government protests as possible. They can’t ban flag burning in general, but they think that they can ban in on federal property. The problem is, flag burning is treated as a type of speech and so a ban on flag burning, but not a ban on burning other flags or objects, would be a content-based restriction which is unconstitutional.

It’s implausible that Hillary Clinton is unaware of any of this. It’s almost certain that she’s doing this in order to bolster support among cultural conservatives — preparation, perhaps, for a presidential campaign. I doubt that this is really enough for her to gain much support from conservatives while it’s guaranteed to kill off support from many liberals and conservatives who support strong protections for free speech. She certainly won’t get my vote in any primaries, that’s for sure.

 

Quick Poll: Should America's flag be protected from burning and other sorts of physical 'desecration?'

1. Yes - the flag is an important symbol and must be protected from those seeking to trample upon it.
2. No - the First Amendment is more important and should not be amended like that - even if flag burning is abhorrent.
3. I don't know / don't care

Click an option to vote, or View Current Poll Results

 

Read More:

• News on Free Speech and Civil Liberties
• Court Decisions on Free Speech and Censorship