June 06, 2006

Way too subtle for me

I think the Colossus needs to up the ante and start flying the Maltese Cross, and perhaps the Lion Heart's Banner.

Posted by Steve at June 6, 2006 07:38 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Yeah, there aren't any flags flown in the US that generate any controversy.

Posted by: LB Buddy at June 6, 2006 07:52 AM

LB, that has been down for a few years now.

Posted by: rbj at June 6, 2006 08:25 AM

Yeah I know. The reason it was taken down was because people found it offensive.

Posted by: LB Buddy at June 6, 2006 09:37 AM

I have a long answer to this one, but it's not worth giving myself a headache to type it all up. Short answer is, though, if you followed the link the original article was not for "sensitivity" but rather fear of violence a la the cartoon riots. In other words, it's a prior restraint "clear and present danger" argument placing a severe limitation on freedom of speech straight out of Schenk which was always argued against by the ACLU.

In other words, it's okay to burn your country's (or someone else's) flag, but not okay to fly it.

But the main problem here, LBBuddy, would be your having to get rid of your Who albums for their offensive Union Jack logos....

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at June 6, 2006 10:01 AM

I'm thinking of putting up a drawing of a Knight Templar uttering various random taunts, kind of like the French in Monty Python and The Holy Grail.

"Infidels out of Outremer!" and "Remember Hattin!" -- that kind of thing.

Posted by: The Colossus at June 6, 2006 11:36 AM

I always found the three flags more amusing than offensive. After all, they placed the Confederate battle flag in an inferior position to the flag that was arrayed against it in war. Basically it was an admition that the North won, yet those who wanted it to remain were of the same ilk as those going round with bumper stickers proclaiming "Yankees 1, Rebels 0, halftime."

Posted by: rbj at June 6, 2006 12:41 PM

it's a prior restraint "clear and present danger" argument placing a severe limitation on freedom of speech straight out of Schenk which was always argued against by the ACLU.

Yeah, I got that part but I think you can argue that the managers registered some sensitivity to the meaning of flag (I don't know if a Muslim would take offense at this flag or not) but then insensitively linked it to threats of violence as justification for removing it (perhaps right action, wrong reason).

A question on the rest of your point: Does it make a difference if this is a private company setting a policy to avoid a problem? Isn't it the same as having a company policy that you will not be allowed to address the black employees as nigger? This company could also have a no flag burning policy, no?

And I prefer British music a decade later. I doubt Johnny Rotten or Joe Strummer were overly reverential when it came to the Union Jack...

Posted by: LB Buddy at June 6, 2006 03:13 PM