LETTERS: BURNING LAWS ALREADY PROTECT FLAG

To the editor:

On June 5 the Southeast Missourian ran on this page a cartoon featuring this dialogue:

Hatless man: "Won't this latest move to make flag burning illegal restrict free speech?"

Hatful man: "Not really! you can say you're going to burn the flag all you want ... ."

I consider the burning of the flag -- any nation's flag -- to be a feckless way to bring a crowd of bystanders to see one's point of view. Why hurt the feelings of people whom you want on your side? The cartoon was intended to be humorous, but I believe that the hatless man had a point. Proponents of the amendment claim that its purpose is not to suppress free speech, but rather to protect the flag.

Consider this: In the World Almanac section headed "Code of Etiquette for Display and Use of the U.S. Flag" and subheaded "How to Dispose of Worn Flags," one finds the following: "When the flag is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, it should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." So, assuming the amendment and the passage of federal law which the amendment would enable, combining the flag with oxygen would both be legal and illegal. Which of the two it would be would depend entirely upon the state of mind of the burner. That fact alone give the lie to the denial that the amendment is an attempt to restrict speech.

Most jurisdictions already have laws against burning anything on public streets. Why would such laws not apply to flags as well? If such laws, which do not even touch upon the concept of speech, were enforced, the garden-variety manifestant would give up on the idea of burning a flag, since laws against burning anything on public streets would restrict him to his back yard, where he would lack that what he most desires: an audience.

This proposed amendment is a transparent attempt to suck up to know-nothing patriotism. It at least is truly worthy of being combined with oxygen.

DONN S. MILLER

Tamms, Ill.