flying the flag

[onenote]

Stumbled across H.R. 42, a bill introduced by R Bartlett, a repub congressman from MD. It specifically prohibits condo associations, coops, homeowners associations, etc. from adopting or enforcing any policy or agreement that would restrict or prevent someone from flying the American flag on residential property.

I don't have a problem with the idea of limiting the ability of homeowner associations, etc to adopt policies that keep people from expressing their first amendment rights, whether it be through flying a flag or posting a sign. But singling out the American flag? Seems like that is blatantly unconstitutional. I have since been told that a number of states have enacted similar legislation.

My question is this: anyone know of an instance where someone in a state that has legislation protecting the flying of the American flag was barred from flying any other type of flag or banner?

onenote

[K-W]

1. It isnt unconstitutional.

Nobodies rights are being infringed.

[yorgatron]

2. this is the type of thing they will soon regret,

after they get tired of people trying to outdo each other with giant flagpoles threatening the airspace above their neighborhood.

[onenote]

4. favoring one type of speech over anothe

Why wouldn't it be unconstitutional (equal protection or first amendment) for the government to guarantee the right of those who want to fly the American flag while leaving unprotected those who might want to fly a flag that conveys a different message (support for another country, a pretty spring picture, a pirate flag, whatever...)

onenote

[bryant69]

5. That's what occured to me too

Say a pretty white flag with a pot leaf on it. How is that any different?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[K-W]

7. Because the constitution doesnt say anything about that.

The constitution says that the government cant deny people free speech without due process.

In this case the government is not denying anyone freedom of speech.

I know where you are coming from, it seems unfair, but its not unconstitutional. If it were a religious symbol, youd have a point, as the US would be favoring one religion over another, but speech doesnt work like that.

[onenote]

10. actually it does

The first amendment doesn't say that the government can deny speech as long as due process is given. What it says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Supreme Court has pretty clearly stated that the government may not favor one speaker over another based on the content of the speech: "It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys. Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972). Other principles follow from this precept. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 804 (1984). Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, ___ (1994) (slip op., at 16-19)."

Singling out the US flag for protection while leaving the display of other flags unprotected strikes me as a clear violation of these principles.

onenote

[stevedeshazer]

3. Well gosh golly, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett

Thanks for addressing this, for there surely is no greater crisis facing our great Republic than the inability to fly flags over condos. :eyes:

[lectrobyte]

6. Seems like there was something several years back where some

patriotic citizen was forced to remove his giant flagpole (I want to say it was a 50' flag pole with the flag was huge as well) due to complaints from the neighbors.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

8. It's not unconstitutional........

....to prevent someone from infringing on another person's right to display something specific, especially an accepted national symbol.

These homeowner's associations are jokes, pure and simple.

[onenote]

9. but singling out one type of flag?

I don't think the government,consistent with the first amendment, could say that its okay for a condo association to bar all signs that criticize the government, but not signs that indicate support. And this flag legislation doesn't seem that different to me...

onenote

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

11. I agree in principle........

......and I understand what you are saying. The idea that you have to enact a law to permit someone to fly the flag of the country they live in is idiotic. Blame the homeowner's associations.

[DaCheat]

12. They aren't really being unfair

They aren't forcing anyone to fly the American flag, and telling you that you can fly it over your condo is not infringing anyone's rights. Its not unconstitutional for the government to tell you that you can fly the American flag over your building. Besides, there are many MANY offensive things that could be flown, and generally, in America, the flag isn't taken offensivly by anyone but a nut.

[onenote]

13. its not offensive to fly the flag

its offensive to tell me that my neighbor has a protected right to fly the American flag, but that I don't have the same protection if I want to fly a different flag..maybe a flage with picture of Chimpy with a circle/slash overlaid on it. The point is that, if free speech means anything, it should mean that the government can't pass laws that protect one viewpoint over another.

onenote

[DaCheat]

14. On that same note

Should we allow freedom of speech to a level of hate? If I wanted to fly a 100' swastika flag outside my condo, should I be able to? The American flag is extremely rarely offensive, and maybe this is a gateway to legislation allowing all flags. Maybe they're taking baby steps. I dont think this is something that you should get upset about.

[onenote]

15. actually, it is something to get upset about

I've lived in neighborhoods that prohibit you from putting any signs in your front yard. So if I wanted to put up a sign that says "Impeach Bush", I couldn't. And my next door neighbor couldn't put up a sign that says "I love the President". But under the theory you use to defend the flag legislation, it would be all right for Congress to pass a law requiring a neighborhood association to allow my neighbor's sign, while still prohbitting me from displaying my sign. And that's wrong.

onenote


ps - I don't have any problem if there is a rule saying no flags larger than X by Y can be flown so long as the rule is neutral as to the content of the flag. No I wouldn't like it if one of my neighbors flew a swastika. Or a Confederate Flag. Or a Flag that said "Kill Democrats". But as a believer in the first amendment, I don't like the idea of the government deciding which messages are ok and which aren't.

[Telly Savalas]

16. Good to see Rep. Bartlett has his priorities straight.

While most of our elected officials waste their time with so called "problems" like the fact 1 in 6 children live in poverty and 45 million Americans have no health insurance, Barlett is committed to focus his fight on neighborhood associations with laser precision.