Not so fine. One of them, somewhat extraordinarily, is Stephen Franks :. The effect of flag-burning derives solely from its power to shock and offend.
It is not speech; it is not expression. As someone with respectable libertarian credentials, Franks ought to know better. He destroyed a symbol of our state because he was so disgusted with the government associating itself with that war, and he wanted to invite us to notice and share his outrage. Yes, he could have written a letter to the editor, which may or may not have been published, or held up a wee sign, which may or may not have attracted attention.
There is a long tradition of flag-burning for political effect. I confess I was surprised at the decision, too. At best, it was pushing the Bill of Rights Act to its limit. Still, Franks has called for flag-burning to be properly banned. I say to those people: suck it up. One of the things that flag stands for is the right to convey your message in ways that other people might find offensive.
Being shocking might be part of the way I like to speak. It may be the best or only way I can attract attention to my message. The US Supreme Court has reached a similar conclusion. The sensitivities around the flag-burning offence are one reason that the Solicitor-General must give consent before anyone can be prosecuted for flag-burning. But now it looks as if police are seeking to do an end-run around the flag burning law. I think that stinks.
She was protesting against the address of the Secretary for Defence. The ceremony was by the cenotaph. My argument is not solely a legal one.
