I found his argument much less compelling than Andrew did. It’s useful to know that there are people who hate America so passionately as to burn the flag, sure. But it’s notable how many of Steyn’s own examples wouldn’t be touched by the flag-burning amendment or any statute enacted under it. It would still be possible for Serbs to burn American flags in Belgrade and for American college students to go to Palestine and do the same thing. So if it’s true that we know the flag means something because people want to burn it, we’d still know that the flag meant something.
Steyn uses Michael Moore as an example–but I don’t see his point. He says that Moore is anti-American but that many people don’t know it, and he says that a ban on flag burning would make it harder for us to see people like Moore for what they are. I don’t understand this point at all. Moore hasn’t burned an American flag. (Has he? I haven’t watched any of his documentaries since Roger & Me.) I don’t see how a ban on flag-burning will make it harder, or easier, to see him for what he is.
Finally, I don’t think it’s true that the flag meant less in 1985 than it does now because state legislatures retained the power to ban the burning of American flags. I’m not, mind you, a proponent of the flag-burning amendment–but I’m getting to be anti-anti-amendment the more I read the arguments against it.