[SeMissourian.com] Overcast ~ 66°F  
River stage: 22.74 ft. Rising
Sunday, Apr. 19, 2015

Mo. A.G. Koster challenges court ruling on flag desecration

Monday, January 14, 2013

Chris Koster
Attorney General Chris Koster is asking an appeals court to reinstate Missouri's ban on flag-burning, though the move was seen as pointless by some in light of a landmark 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that would supersede any lower court's decision.

Koster agrees it's a long shot, but he's not backing down.

"While we understood that defending the statute was an uphill battle, most Missourians have a strong reaction against flag desecration," said Koster spokeswoman Nanci Gonder. "Our defense of the statute was our attempt to give voice to that patriotic sentiment."

Those at the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri said they will continue to fight Koster in court. Legal director Tony Rothert said he was more bemused than shocked when he learned of Koster's appeal that was certified by the courts last week. Rothert even speculated that the appeal appears to be little more than a token gesture by an ambitious politician.

"My first response was, 'Really?'" Rothert said. "I think the attorney general wants to say he did everything he could to defend this."

Koster intervened in a federal lawsuit between Frank L. Snider III and the city of Cape Girardeau that was filed in 2010 at the Rush Hudson Limbaugh Federal Courthouse. Snider sued after he was arrested for cutting up an American flag and throwing it in the street. Federal judge Carol E. Jackson awarded Snider $7,000 in damages last month, $1,000 for each hour he was incarcerated. Jackson at her initial March ruling also issued a permanent injunction against the enforcement of any damage to a flag.

Koster's court challenge was filed with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though a date has yet to be added to the docket.

The case captured the attention of Missouri residents statewide for a time following Snider's arrest.

Snider was initially given a littering citation after a neighbor noticed him cutting a flag before he tossed it in the street. But the arresting officer returned to take Snider into custody three days later after former prosecutor Morley Swingle requested an arrest warrant.

Swingle made the call based on the 1980 Missouri statute that made flag desecration a crime. But Swingle called for Snider's release when he was told of the Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson that invalidated so-called flag-burning laws in the 48 states that had them.

While some may chastise Koster for filing the appeal, the attorney general's office seemingly attempted to make a compelling case at trial level. Koster's original argument wasn't whether flag desecration is protected by the First Amendment, but whether it is always protected. The Missouri statute also applies to those who defile or mutilate the flag when it isn't meant to express a belief or political idea, Koster said. The state's court filing at trial cites the example of someone blowing his nose into a flag simply because he's out of tissue, not because he's trying to convey any idea or intentionally show disrespect. Those instances should still be considered illegal, Koster said, because they are not protected speech.

Now, the matter falls into the hands of the appeals court. Rothert said all Americans should feel free to express their beliefs -- even if some find the thought of burning an American flag unpatriotic.

"It has been clearly established for 25 years that the First Amendment includes the right to engage in expressive conduct that is disrespectful to the flag," Rothert said. "But in Missouri, we have people still being arrested and going to jail for doing just that. Most of the country moved on 25 years ago. It's a little disappointing that the attorney general's office is still trying to defend it."



Pertinent address:

555 Independence St., Cape Girardeau, Mo.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Rothert sounds like a idiot.

-- Posted by grandpa3 on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 6:51 AM

Because he has a better grasp of the concept of legal precedence than our Attorney General?

-- Posted by Lippy Radeck on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 7:57 AM

Wow. The State of Missouri believes I should be arrested for blowing my nose on the flag. I'm sure that's what The Founders intended.

This is a thought crime. If I (blow my nose on the flag or) cut up and burn the flag with the right thought in my head; it's okee-dokee. If I cut up and burn the flag with the wrong thought in my head; it's grounds for incarceration.

I pray to God that we stop this thought crime (hate crime) nonsense.

This is one where I probably agree w/ the ACLU.

-- Posted by bbollmann on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 8:35 AM

Yes, it is very popular to try to ban flag degradation. Please remember, or understand, why we have fought the wars for the past 240 years. To protect American right of free speech. I do not agree with flag burning of course, but will die to protect any one's right to do so if that is what they deem necessary.

-- Posted by grandma73 on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 9:06 AM

It's not about the flag but what it stands for. When you disrespect the flag you are disrespecting the values and freedom we have in America and all those who fought and died for the freedom we have. If any of you want to burn the flag, do me a favor. Rap yourself up in it first.

-- Posted by hotshot202 on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 9:18 AM

"Our defense of the statute was our attempt to give voice to that patriotic sentiment." Actually, it is his attempt of secure a voting block for his future political advancement.

-- Posted by skeptic-by-nature on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 11:10 AM

If I purchase something with my own money it is mine to do what I want with. I am with the ACLU on this one.

-- Posted by 3forone on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 12:38 PM

Don Quixote wanna-be. Our Government is broke and we have wind mill fighters. If this is all he has to do then we could do away with his position altogether.

I'd much rather see our officials fight to replace our rights than see them flail their arms over a symbol.

-- Posted by malan on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 12:47 PM

Just political grandstanding. He is the Benidict Arnold of Missouri.

-- Posted by jackson88parent on Mon, Jan 14, 2013, at 6:08 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Map of pertinent addresses