A case in Iowa where a man is accused of desecrating an American flag has been allowed to go forward by the trial judge:
Scott Wayne Roe, 40, of Ottumwa is accused of desecrating the United States flag June 4 when he displayed the flag upside down at his residence and wrote "Corruption of Blood," a phrase from the U.S. Constitution, on the flag.
In his complaint filed with magistrate court, Ottumwa Police Officer Mark Milligan said Roe "did admit to displaying for exhibition and had present in the front yard of his residence for public viewing, an American flag flown upside down."
Roe's attorney filed a motion to dismiss based on the law being overly broad and upon the US and Iowa constitutions. This seems like a no-brainer to me. Texas v Johnson is clearly on point here and makes the law unenforcable. I can't imagine this will survive appellate review.
- Log in to post comments
So let me get this straight,
-signing an American flag like it's a napkin ... OK
-using an American flag as a doormat ... OK
-flying it upside down with an obvious message ... not OK?
I agree Ed, this should be a slam dunk, you could almost argue that it is an even more obvious example of a protected free speech case.
Yes, this is a more obvious example of protected speech than burning a flag, since it involves actually writing a message on the flag. Flag burning in public could be outlawed under a general anti-burning ordinance, for example. This sort of thing could not.
It's kind of funny that the defendant's name really is "Roe".
I really don't understand the meaning of "desecrate" as it is being used here. Using the flag on clothing or as advertizing is fine in Iowa, apparently, but actually using the flag to convey a message is verboten.
The whole logic of flag protection is odd, when you think about it. Because the flag conveys such a potent message, people shouldn't be allowed to use a flag to...convey a message. Hmmm, time for another drink.
Dogmeat's comments deserve links to the relevant photos:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/georgewbush/ig/100-Bush-Pictures/Bus…
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8435.html#comments
The upside of all this is that after Bush, you would think it would be difficult for anyone to be convicted of flag desecration. (In what way was Bush signing a flag not both desecration and a political statement?)
Actually, there might be a slight amount of merit. Flying a flag upside down is an international signal for an emergency - it's like calling 911. Since there was no actual emergency, despite the symbolic intent, he could conceivably be charged with a crime similar to a prank 911 call.
The whole logic of flag protection is odd, when you think about it. Because the flag conveys such a potent message, people shouldn't be allowed to use a flag to...convey a message. Hmmm, time for another drink.
The logic is odd because it's only the ostensible "logic" that is being used. People's problem with "flag desecration" isn't the fact that the flag has something written one it or is used in an advertisement. The real problem they have is that someone is expressing a dissenting opinion and they don't like it.
It's classic jingoistic speech repression.
What did Radar O'Reily have to say about this?
My name is scott roe. Recently I had to stand trial for desecration of the American flag. I was found not guilty of the crime, but the magistrate rendered his decision with heistancy and a certain amount of contempt. I stood up for my beliefs against the judicial system,the police, the press, and my community as a whole.
I now want to challenge the press that made me into a seditious anti-American to report the verdict of this case with the same zeal they possessed when they were painting a very innaccurate picture of this entire affair.