According to this news article four protesters were arrested for burning two American flags at the Occupy Charlotte encampment. The initial reaction is, of course, that this is constitutionally protected expression, but according to the linked article the flags were set afire outside of a fire pit and in sufficient proximity to tents that $30 worth of damage resulted. Not clear is whether the damage was to the tents or the flags themselves. At any rate the charge appears to be the misdemeanor of "carelessness with fire." I haven't been able to find the text of the statute so I can't opine on whether it is sufficiently precise to avoid negation on vagueness grounds. Assuming the law is not vague, the charges are probably constitutionally permissible, absent some good proof that the arrest was made simply because of the message conveyed. Although, on that point, recall O'Brien's conclusion that an impermissible motivation to enact a law is no grounds for invalidation if the law is otherwise valid. Here, though, the claim would be that a neutral law was applied in a constitutionally impermissible manner. If the only damage was to the flags themselves, that adds some weight to the claim of discriminatory enforcement. More remains to be seen.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.