This describes a trick that Fox News played on some to make her believe she was breaking the law base on the Federal Flag Code. The article also discusses partisan language in the code, that gives a distorted picture of citizen's rights in this country

::::::::

The word is "Fascism," and I used in the title, "Fox Flag Fascism," on a Dailykos essay that got a large response.  I will post it here, but since the posting yesterday I've had some second thoughts, and now feel that I may have done what I detest in others, those who call President Obama a "socialist who will lead us into communism."   Is there an equivalence?  And even if the points that I make about Fox news are correct, is it fascism or just stupid bullying.  I look forward to comments that address this question.

---------------

Fox Flag Fascism

The uniformed authorities pounded on the door, and the woman opened it. The man said in a strong voice, "that flag you have is against the code." The woman responded, "this is private property, please leave." The man demanded, "Take it down, NOW!"

Back to the national television feed, and the panel discussion of this event. Sean Hannity smiled, and said, "She got the message, and took it down." The panel was made up of three guests, two men who echoed the host, and a single young women, appearing partly African American, who was speaking for the left, or everyone who rejects the thrust of this program. The flag in question had a picture of President Obama replacing the field of thirteen stars in the upper left hand corner.

It turns out that the authorities I described at the door was a member of veteran's group, and only gave the appearance of an official, yet, the message conveyed in the tone of the interaction at the door and of the panel discussion was that this was the law. Hannity's right wing panelist chimed in, "This flag is against the code." and they agreed that such a picture of Obama is like in North Korea, where the leader's face is everywhere.

We can disagree on the wisdom and propriety of a Democratic club flying such an altered flag. I would have opposed it, personally. Yet, this little vignette played out on Fox was about much more than this event. Both the video and the conversation of the panelists gave the impression that because this was, in fact, contrary to the federal flag code, that it was illegal. This is what the code says about this:

Thus, the Flag Code does not prescribe any penalties for non-compliance nor does it include enforcement provisions; rather the Code functions simply as a guide to be voluntarily followed by civilians and civilian groups.

Cases which have construed the former 36 U.S.C. - 17521 have concluded
that the Flag Code does not proscribe conduct, but is merely declaratory and
advisory.22

Do you feel better now that you know that the pounding on the door and the implied threat of the order to take down the altered flag was bogus. I wouldn't be too reassured. The real police or the would be vigilantes who are incensed by this TV program will not bother to read the actual federal law on this issue.

And even fewer of those incensed by this program will bother to explore the Supreme Court decision that decreed that not only political alteration such as this, but desecration, including burning the flag, is still protected by our constitution as freedom of speech. You know, the same first amendment provision that in "Citizen's United" gives corporations unlimited right to flood the political channels of communication.

While corporations freedom of expression seems pretty safe, internal political dissidence is on more shaky grounds. The Supreme Court decision to protect desecration of the flag was decided by a single vote, as did the vote stopping the constitutional amendment to override that court decision in the Senate.

We are closer to Fox News fostered fascism, where police power is used to protect the symbol of government authority than we know.

As I was exploring the flag code, I came across this from Paragraph 8:

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel,
firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag
represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

With the flag declared a living thing, we are venturing into Koran territory, where destruction of a flag is killing a being. Although they don't say whether it is in the class of an amoeba or closer to a human, the tone implies that it is a higher order living thing and certainly not a mere rectangle of cloth printed in China.

Most troubling is something that I have been following closely for a long time, and taken some stands both in body and in public writing. From the Frequently Asked Questions section:

Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance is set forth in 4 U.S.C. - 4. In 1954, Congress added
to the "Pledge of Allegiance" the phrase "under God" after "nation". Questions
about the "Pledge of Allegiance" usually involve practices and requirements of local
and state statutes mandating participation in the recitation of the "Pledge" in some
manner (e.g., flag salute and pledge, standing quietly, standing at attention) in
schools. Provisions involving compulsory participation in "Pledge" activities are
usually attacked as violations of the free speech clause of the First Amendment or the free exercise of religion clause.

"Attacked", not challenged, or overruled as is usually the case, but attacked.

In 1943, the Supreme Court held that a state-required compulsory flag salute-Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment rights of members of the
Jehovah's Witnesses religious group. In 2002, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had held both the 1954 federal statute adding the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance and a California school district policy requiring teachers to lead willing school children in reciting the pledge each school day to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.18 A subsequent modification
eliminated the holding regarding the federal statute but retained the ruling holding
that the California statute coerces children into participating in a religious exercise.19

The Supreme Court, on Flag Day 2004, reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding that
Newdow lacked standing to challenge the school district's policy

The first sentence of the above section describing the 1943 case was treated as an introduction to the section that ended with the implication that it was "reversed" by the Supreme Court in 2004

If you found the above section less than lucid, it was by intent. This was included in the U.S. Code, to distort the meaning of court decisions in order to elevate patriotic ritual over the values of freedom of expression. The first sentence, the importance of the 1943 decision, which has never been reversed, is clear when expressed this way:

In 1943, the Supreme Court, in a case brought by members of Jehovah's Witnesses held that a state-required compulsory flag salute-Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment rights of American citizens. It ruled that no citizen may ever be compelled to say any words or take any action on the authority of any government official. --end of paragraph--

This is the law of the land *, as is the right to alter the American flag at will, whether it is to add a President's picture, or your son returning from a war, or a peace sign as was a common form of protest. This is the way things are as of March 15, 2012. Depending on choices made by voters, and those who elected to office and appointed to Judgeships, it well may become obsolete before too long.

It could be that the image of breaking the law by disrespecting the flag that was dramatized by Fox may soon be true, and that the knock on the door will not be from a retired veteran who was making a hollow threat, but by a real police officer, or armed military contingent, or mob of angry people enraged at someone who refused to follow follow instructions from an all powerful government or leader.

We are only a vote away.
-------------
* The Case, Barnette. vs West Virginia, expressed the pure essence of freedom by its contrasting our values with those of our mortal enemy, virulent Nazi fascism, at time when it wasn't clear which would prevail. It was encapsulated in these concluding words from the majority opinion:

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization.

To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great.

But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Authors Website: www.alrodbell.blogspot.com

Authors Bio:
Retired Commercial Printing Executive, developer of I.T. systems for the industry. Advanced degrees in Social Psychology, now living in Southern California