Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue

A few states have passed laws requiring employers to let their workers display flags. Most of the legislators who voted for these statutes probably saw them as a blow for free speech, but Eugene Volokh argues that they're actually the opposite.

Comments

[Sir Real]

Brendon-

the legislators should SAVE THE TAX DOLLARS they will inevitably spend to defend this piece-of-crap law.

BTW- if you have such contempt for the consitution- why not go somewhere there isn't one?

[Sir Real]

...that's "Constitution", rather...

[Brendon]

Real,

I'm just stating how I feel. I don't really need the legislature to pass a law about it. The way I'd prefer to handle it would be, if my boss told me I couldn't hang the flag, I'd punch him in the face.
But the law doesn't make me fear for the Constitution. There is a big practical separation between the two.

[Miss Priss]

Sir Real, we don't have a "Preview" button down there for nothing, you know.

Unless, of course, you're in such an emotional rage about the topic, that your flying fingers can't wait to hit "Post."

In that case -- you're forgiven.

[Jim]

Free speech does not include free access to other people's property. Why is it that very few people understand this?

Volokh's point is frightening, that when a widely supported feel-good proviso is offered up as law, no one questions it on principle. Granted, this isn't exactly a death and tyranny statute, but it is completely at odds with the constitution and at least 51% of the state legislators (in the states with such laws) who SHOULD KNOW THIS apparently didn't or didn't care.

[Brendon]

"...this isn't exactly a death and tyranny statute"
Jim, you're right, this isn't such a law. So, get over it! Any employer who bars the US FLAG should be run out of town. The Katha Pollitt's of the world should save their useless grips about the flag for peace time.