This is pretty damned unbelievable- a Carolina newspaper publishes a letter threatening Ed Cone.
Reader Interactions
10Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
Flags and crosses
Link: EdCone.com. I’m sure that even talking flags see the distinction between stomping on a piece of cloth and stomping on a person. Ed Cone feels threatened by the letter to a Carolina newspaper cautioning flagburners against doing their
Compuglobalhypermeganet
I still don’t see anyone being “threatened” in that letter. A threat goes, “If you do X, I’ll do Y.” That letter merely states that if you burn a flag in front of a Marine, you are likely to get stomped. Whether that observation is true I have my doubts, but there’s no threat of violence.
Some journos do love to play the martyr, though, don’t they?
John Cole
The letter:
which basically intimates that if someone engages in their right to free speech (as offensive as I find it, someone should beat them.
Seems pretty threatening to me, and not the sort of shit that sihould be published in newspapers. Unless, of course, if you think “If you do this you should get beaten” is the type of thing you thing newspapers should be peddling.
Zzyzx
My problem with flag burning isn’t that it shouldn’t be protected speech (obviously it’s making a political statement of sorts), but rather that it’s dumb. Flag burning is just done to piss people off, not make a coherent statement. Gather 10,000 people to protest something, assemble many speakers, but have one person burn a flag during the procedings, and guess what will get all of the coverage.
Of course, the irony of the whole thing is that proper disposal of a worn out flag is to burn it…
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Which is still not a threat (there’s no “I will do Y”), and this letter doesn’t even go as far as that!
The letter says, if someone steps on or burns the flag in front of a soldier, that person is likely to get stomped, which is only an observation, not an endorsement (an endorsement which would still not be a “threat”). Of course, from the tenor of the letter, I think we both agree that the writer (who stole the “I Am Old Glory” bit from Nelson Muntz — obscure Simpsons reference of the day) wouldn’t shed a tear for someone who got handled by a Marine for burning a flag in front of him, but that’s beside my point.
I’m with you on the second half. This sort of shit seems much better suited for the blogs!
Seriously, you don’t think this is just a BIT of Geraldo-Rivera-fake-action-hero-martyrdom at play here?
John Cole
If I worked for a newspaper, and advocated a position (and Cone didn’t even really do that), and then the newspaper published a piece that said if I was seeen doing that action, I should be beaten, I would think it is pretty unnerving.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Again…not “should”…“would”. He’s saying that it would happen, which may or may not be correct.
And come on, does Cone really find it that unnervingly implausible that a US soldier wold likely take offense over someone burning a flag in front of him? Is this letter really dropping science on him? If Cone were of the “burn a flag in front of a Marine” bent, I think he’d fully realize that he was likely in physical danger because of his exercise of free speech.
p.lukasiak
the writer of that letter was such a moron that he kinda made be want to join the 25 individuals from a different species of morons who wanted to burn flags to protest the flag burning amendment.
Ed Cone
Compuwhatever, I describe the threat “as a conditional action based on possible behavior on my part,” and note that it comes from an inaminate object. Sorry, I don’t take myself as seriously as you or Geraldo do yourselves.
One commenter at the newspaper site does make a direct threat to punch me in the nose if I burn a flag in front of him. He, too, should pay more attention to what I actually wrote — I’m not a flag-burner, I’m a supporter of the First Amendment.
Finally, as noted by more than one commenter at the various sites where this is being discussed — it’s insulting to assume that veterans are violence-prone and incapable of understanding the Constitutional principles involved. And guess what: the flag doesn’t belong to veterans any more than it does other Americans.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Well, that would be plain-old wrong. That’s not what “threatening” someone is. (Cue Beavis, as Cornholio: “Are you threatening me?!”) By your definition, if I say, “Look out! A heavy, steel safe is falling into your path!” then I’m threatening you. I am describing a conditional action (getting hit on the head with a safe) based on possible behavior on your part (continuing on your path).
Threatening someone is saying, “If you do X, then I will do Y (or have Y done to you).” The letter you cite is more of a snarky warning to you (“If you do X in certain conditions, then look out for Y happening to you!”), telling you to expect that safe falling on your head.
I don’t recall holding myself out as a victim of my “enemies,” so I have no idea why I might be in that sentence — if you’re taking a little shot at me for no reason, I think that’s weak, but whatever. I just think you went a little overboard with the whole “He’s Threatening Me!” bit, and I think I’ve made my case well enough.
I would hope a soldier would respect that everyone has his rights, but I certainly would not be surprised if human emotion took over (need we cite recent examples of soldiers not respecting fully the rights of others?). As I’ve said all along, maybe Fake Old Glory is correct about a soldier’s reaction, and maybe he is not, but he’s certainly not telling you anything you don’t already know.
He may be an idiot, he may be dead wrong, but there’s no reason to believe you are being threatened by him.