President-elect Trump is certainly no stranger to social media controversies, and it appears his victory in November hasn’t changed the likelihood that additional controversies will come our way. Early this morning, Trump tweeted that flag burning should result in a loss of citizenship or jail time.
Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016
Flag burning has always been a controversial and emotional issue in United States politics. My father, uncle and both grandfathers served in the military. I have great respect for the American flag, what it represents and people who have served (and continue to serve) to protect freedom. I can think of few symbolic expressions of anti-Americanism I find more repulsive than burning the nation’s flag, but, contrary to Trump’s beliefs, I believe the only kind of speech worth protecting is that which others find offensive.
I support the right to burn flags, hate America and openly question, and even insult, our political, cultural, academic, economic and military leaders. I do so not because being offensive is good, but because being offensive is subjective. What Trump finds perfectly legitimate speech may be viewed by others, especially his political rivals, as “offensive” and worthy of being barred by law. If Trump believes it’s legitimate to prevent dissenters from burning flags, why is it not legitimate for his rivals to pass laws preventing his free expression or speech? Where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line?
By protecting the right to speak and express oneself, the Constitution empowers the individual against the nation’s power structures. This doesn’t mean, as many who are defending Trump’s comments today allege, all speech and expression is free. That’s true. You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater or threaten to harm people with word and action. The First Amendment is not a license to ruin the lives of others or to create dangerous situations.
As the Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson (1989), a case that dealt specifically with flag burning, laws against breaching the peace are permissible. But, the court reasoned, when people freely and peacefully express themselves, however offensively, without harming the rights of others, that free expression (or speech) is protected under the First Amendment as long as it does not harm the rights of others.
I agree, and would go a step further: When societies ban free expression and speech, they actually increase the likelihood of violence. When people feel oppressed and voiceless, that’s when they are most likely to lash out against those who have chosen to silence them.
Trump’s argument that people should potentially lose their citizenship for freely expressing themselves is dangerous and reeks of authoritarianism. Hopefully the backlash against his comments will convince him to reverse his position, which, if it were somehow made into law, would be both illegal and highly oppressive.
Justin Haskins is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an executive editor at The Heartland Institute. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
