Flag burning vote TOMORROW and government-imposed ratings

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 13:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship-announce@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Flag burning vote TOMORROW and government-imposed ratings

I don't often forward along non-Net issues, but these are too important to
ignore. First, from my colleagues at AllPolitics:

	http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/gen/analysis/counterpoint/

        Counterpoint: Ban Flag Burning?

        It's baaaack.....! The House is set to vote June 12 on
	a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would
	ban flag desecration. Democratic Rep. William
	Lipinksi, a lead sponsor, says the flag is too
	important a symbol not to be protected, while ACLU
	executive director Ira Glasser warns against
	weakening the First Amendment.

Read on for a note from Chris Finan. Also check out Cato's web site for a
related paper on mandatory "voluntary" ratings by f-c subscriber Bob
Corn-Revere:

  http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/v_chipes.html

-Declan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 12:43:54 -0400
From: Chris Finan <mediacoalition@sprintmail.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Government ratings of TV

Declan,

	The opponents of government-mandated TV ratings need help.  The FCC is
under heavy pressure to appoint a panel to devise a system of ratings to
replace the ratings that the networks have voluntarily adopted.  More than
300 of the 355 e-mail comments received by the FCC have been from
individuals and groups urging greater censorship of TV.

	Would you post this message on the Fight Censorship list to let people
know that they can e-mail their views to the FCC?  Their messages, which
needn't be long or formal, should be sent to vchip@fcc.gov as soon as
possible. 

	The Free Expression Network has jumped in with both feet to the fight
against a government-mandated TV rating system.  Its website, the Free
Expression Clearing House, www.freeexpression.org, has a lot of current
information on the TV ratings fight.

	Thanks.

| 	http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/gen/analysis/counterpoint/
| 
|         Counterpoint: Ban Flag Burning?
| 
|         It's baaaack.....! The House is set to vote June 12 on
| 	a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would
| 	ban flag desecration. Democratic Rep. William
| 	Lipinksi, a lead sponsor, says the flag is too
| 	important a symbol not to be protected, while ACLU
| 	executive director Ira Glasser warns against
| 	weakening the First Amendment.

	Would a Flag Burning Ammendment give the court clear guidance
that other offensive speech, not ammended against, is now more ok?

Adam



-- 
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
					               -Hume

>> 	Would a Flag Burning Amendment give the court clear guidance
>> that other offensive speech, not amended against, is now more ok?

At 06:23 AM 6/12/97 -0700, Declan wrote:
>Just woke up, but I would argue "no."  This would be the first
>constitutional weakening of the First Amendment ever. 
>Hardly a move that strengthens free speech protections. 

Normally when the government wants to weaken the First Amendment,
it does it through the courts, or makes laws nationalizing the spectrum :-)  
This isn't the first time CONgress has tried a flag-burning amendment; 
they tried it under George Bush* as well, and failed to get it through.
Does this look any different, under a Republican Congress?

[As somebody said, if you wrapped yourself in the flag as much as Bush did,
you'd worry about flag-burning too....  Clinton doesn't do it as much,
but he's no more a friend of civil liberties, and if the polls said
51% of the voters want him to sign it, he probably would.]

#			Thanks;  Bill
# Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com
# You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp
#   (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies.  Thanks.)

Jut woke up, but I would argue "no." This would be the first
constitutional weakening of the First Amendment ever. Hardly a move that
strengthens free speech protections. 

-Declan


On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Adam Shostack wrote:

> | 	http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/gen/analysis/counterpoint/
> | 
> |         Counterpoint: Ban Flag Burning?
> | 
> |         It's baaaack.....! The House is set to vote June 12 on
> | 	a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would
> | 	ban flag desecration. Democratic Rep. William
> | 	Lipinksi, a lead sponsor, says the flag is too
> | 	important a symbol not to be protected, while ACLU
> | 	executive director Ira Glasser warns against
> | 	weakening the First Amendment.
> 
> 	Would a Flag Burning Ammendment give the court clear guidance
> that other offensive speech, not ammended against, is now more ok?
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
> 					               -Hume
> 
> 
> 
>