9/11 Tribute Helmets

[Mac the Knife]

Gang,

If it were illegal, Bud Selig and his MLB would be in jail right now. Remember right after 9/11 how suddenly American flags began appearing on every MLB team's uniform?

If it were illegal, that would constitute a violation, punishable under this law. So would several team and league logos.

And while I'm all for jailing Bud Selig, this isn't how I'd go about it.

[slapshot]

It's not illegal to put a U.S. flag patch on any official uniform. Otherwise many civil servants and military personnel would be in constant violation of the law. I have the flag on a few oy my football referee jerseys and on a few of my baseball umpire jerseys.

All MLB did was affix a U.S. Flag Patch on its uniforms and caps. The MLB logo was slightly reworked in a patriotic way, but that logo only appeared painted behind the home plate circle, and it didn't change any one team's logo to look like the flag. Since the MLB logo is already red, white and blue, the flag resemblance was much more subtle.

If a team wants to wear a flag patch or another patriotic emblem that's fine. Many NHL teams and AHL teams did this in October of 2001. But it's a little "trendy" and somewhat innappropriate to change your entire logo to look like the flag, like what the Razorbacks are doing. If they wanted to rework the logo as red, white and blue, that's one thing. But they made a U.S. Razorback flag, which is almost obnoxious in its intended patriotic sentimentality.

[Phil]

I didn't read anything refers to pictures of the flag. In fact in several places the code specifically seems to be referrring only to the actual flag, NOT representations of it...

That's a pretty good point.

Wasn't Kid Rock wearing a shirt that looked like it was cut from the flag itself, during one Super Bowl's halftime show? I seem to remember there being some eyebrows raised about that...

Also, I remember the outcry when some American track and field stars (Gold medal men's 4x100 team?) draped themselves in the flag after winning.

Interesting rules regarding the flag. Canada doesn't have to deal with this as much... probably because we're not generally as overtly patriotic as Americans.

[TBGKon]

I wouldnt be surprised if some teams do something patriotic on the 9/11 college football weekend, MLB too

and on the topic of flags, what about that line of new era MLB caps that had the team cap logo recolored with the American flag.

[pagan696]

Wasn't Kid Rock wearing a shirt that looked like it was cut from the flag itself, during one Super Bowl's halftime show? I seem to remember there being some eyebrows raised about that...

Also, I remember the outcry when some American track and field stars (Gold medal men's 4x100 team?) draped themselves in the flag after winning.

Interesting rules regarding the flag. Canada doesn't have to deal with this as much... probably because we're not generally as overtly patriotic as Americans.

Kid Rock had an actual flag with a hole cut in it, worn as a poncho. very disrespectful flag etiquette.

the olympians were draping the flag similar to a pro-wrestler's cape and mock flying (a la Superman). once again very disrespectful flag etiquette.

these were actual flags. not illegal, it just rankles folks who hold their flag to higher standards.

the MLB had flag caps a few years back as well with the NY or the A (Braves) logo being color filled with a flag. incorporating the flag into logos is ok, just expect some critisim since not everyone agrees on how this best should be done. it's more like relating your branded logo into "the American way" which everyone may not agree with you on.

[jkrdevil]

It's clear having stars and Stripes in a logo isn't illeagal. The Yankees have had stars and stripes in their logo for over 75 years.

[Saintsfan]

I don't really get all this 'flag ettiquete' nonsense. To illustrate my point let me quote Bill Hicks

'I don't wanna burn my flag, but if someone wants to burn theres all I am saying is perhaps they don't need to go to jail. You get people who say 'My daddy died for that flag'. I always say 'man, I bought mine, yeah they sell them down at K-Mart, $5 each.' 'my Daddy died in Korea for that flag' 'Man what a coincidence, my flag was made in Korea.' people don't die for a flag- thats a piece of cloth, they die for freedom, which includes incidentally, the right to burn the :censored:ing flag.'

Its a flag, thats it. you don't need to all the time to it.

[habsfannova]

I think it would have been classier to put just a flag on the helmet instead of putting in a pig, eh?

[Sterling84]

Terrific article on this topic (the flag appropriateness, not Arkansas) in last week Friday's Wall Street Journal. I think it was Friday.

Anyway, if you can find it, read it. Very interesting.

[pagan696]

read the reprint here http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/new...cal/9074351.htm

[Survival79]

In order to clarify a few points regarding this issue:

I didn't read anything refers to pictures of the flag. In fact in several places the code specifically seems to be referrring only to the actual flag, NOT representations of it.

Section (j) of the US Code states: No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.

Gang,

If it were illegal, Bud Selig and his MLB would be in jail right now. Remember right after 9/11 how suddenly American flags began appearing on every MLB team's uniform?

If it were illegal, that would constitute a violation, punishable under this law. So would several team and league logos.

And while I'm all for jailing Bud Selig, this isn't how I'd go about it.

It's not illegal to put a U.S. flag patch on any official uniform. Otherwise many civil servants and military personnel would be in constant violation of the law. I have the flag on a few oy my football referee jerseys and on a few of my baseball umpire jerseys.

Once again, Section (j) of the US Code states: However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.

I don't really get all this 'flag ettiquete' nonsense. To illustrate my point let me quote Bill Hicks

'I don't wanna burn my flag, but if someone wants to burn theres all I am saying is perhaps they don't need to go to jail. You get people who say 'My daddy died for that flag'. I always say 'man, I bought mine, yeah they sell them down at K-Mart, $5 each.' 'my Daddy died in Korea for that flag' 'Man what a coincidence, my flag was made in Korea.' people don't die for a flag- thats a piece of cloth, they die for freedom, which includes incidentally, the right to burn the :censored:ing flag.'

Its a flag, thats it. you don't need to  all the time to it.

As stated in the US Code, the flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. While you do not have to agree with it (you can burn the flag, defecate on the flag, make a car cover out if it if you wish) the US Code provides guidelines to appropriately handle and respect it.

I think many of you are confusing etiquette with law.

[Sterling84]

read the reprint here http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/new...cal/9074351.htm

Thanks pagan

This is actually one of two articles or peices that ran that day. Right next to one another. Sorry to be vague and cause confusion.

The other was sort of an opinion piece from a veteran who bristled at the "new patriotism" if you will that had well-meaning people abusing the traditions of flag etiquette.

Among the things it said you can't do were:

Leave a flag out overnight, unless illuminated. (Which means even leaving those crappy ones rolled up in your car window at night is frowned upon.)

Display a flag perpendicular to the ground, unless folding it, or at funerals

and he kind of went off on someone he saw "raising the flag" one morning to half-mast for Reagan. Flags are to be raised all the way every time, and then lowered to show proper respect. It was neat.

He also said printing it on stuff related to advertising for anything was a no-no...soda cans etc. And, despite the furvor over it, burning the flag is the only acceptable way to dispose of one.

I'll go into my boss' office later and see if he's still got the paper, maybe I'll scan it in later.

It'd be my opinion that the Razorbacks thing is innappropriate, if well-meaning. I'm behind the free speech and right to do whatever whenever. But its nice to admit what we dont know and learn something.......defer to the people who lived and often died by the principles they imparted to stand for something in the flag. If veterans want me to treat the flag in a certain way......I'd certainly try to be more aware.

[sacker12]

Will you guys chill out about the Stars and Stripes hog?!? The helmet that features the Stars and Stripes hog was made by a man named Jacob London, who is a member of the same email group that I'm in called the VHM club. He simply made those decals not only for a collector's item, but to put them on a cardinal mini-helmet that he was at least planning to send to Frank Broyles for the Hogs to wear in the 9/11 game. At least at this time, it is not official whether or not the Hogs will be wearing that decal in a game.

[Geoff]

It is a rarely enforced federal law about using the Flag in any way, shape, or form on a sports uniform. The whole reasoning behind it is that it might get dirty and would disrespect the flag.

[Saintsfan]

In order to clarify a few points regarding this issue:

I didn't read anything refers to pictures of the flag. In fact in several places the code specifically seems to be referrring only to the actual flag, NOT representations of it.

Section (j) of the US Code states: No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform.

If the code were a legal document, i would still believe this to be ambiguous in terms of what it is actually talking about. 'No part of the flag' means what exactly? Are no teams allowed to use white stars on a blue background on there logo or uniforms?

If I were asked to make a judgement, and I were considering the document as a whole, much as a Supreme Court justice were to consider the constitution as a whole, I would assume that the writers of the code were referring specifically to the flag itself and that pictures and other representations of the flag are ok to be used on a logo or uniform.

Interestingly, the code actually suggest burning the flag, (obviously only once its worn out!)

[Survival79]

If the code were a legal document, i would still believe this to be ambiguous in terms of what it is actually talking about. 'No part of the flag' means what exactly? Are no teams allowed to use white stars on a blue background on there logo or uniforms?

It is certainly reasonable to use white stars on a blue field or alternating red and white stripes in any logo or other creative design. The intention of the US Code is to encourage the use of the flag in its entirety in a proper manner.

While I can understand your points, Section (g) of the US Code appears to address the Arkansas helmet logo issue by stating that "the flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

And although this does not say whether or not the writers were referring specifically to the flag itself or to pictures of the flag, it can be readily inferred to include pictures of the flag based on the fact that other parts of the Code refer to printed or otherwise impressed items.

[Saintsfan]

While I can understand your points, Section (g) of the US Code appears to address the Arkansas helmet logo issue by stating that "the flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

Actually what section G is referrring to is putting an image onto the flag, so for instance adding an eagle to the flag, rather than putting the flag onto anything. Which is the reverse of what was done on the football helmet!!

Man I ashould have been a law student!!!

[Survival79]

While I can understand your points, Section (g) of the US Code appears to address the Arkansas helmet logo issue by stating that "the flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

Actually what section G is referrring to is putting an image onto the flag, so for instance adding an eagle to the flag, rather than putting the flag onto anything. Which is the reverse of what was done on the football helmet!!

Man I ashould have been a law student!!!

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The phrase "attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature" is pretty clear and applies to this case. The flag is "attached" to the Razorback and the Razorback is "attached" to the flag.

If anything, this is worse than putting an eagle or other logo on the flag because the Razorback is taking prominence over the flag itself.

[Saintsfan]

While I can understand your points, Section (g) of the US Code appears to address the Arkansas helmet logo issue by stating that "the flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature."

Actually what section G is referrring to is putting an image onto the flag, so for instance adding an eagle to the flag, rather than putting the flag onto anything. Which is the reverse of what was done on the football helmet!!

Man I ashould have been a law student!!!

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The phrase "attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature" is pretty clear and applies to this case. The flag is "attached" to the Razorback and the Razorback is "attached" to the flag.

If anything, this is worse than putting an eagle or other logo on the flag because the Razorback is taking prominence over the flag itself.

man i hate to get into a semantic legalese arguement, BUT section G is talking about placing an image onto the flag. that IS different from placing the image of the flag onto something else. Whether its worse or not is irrelevant. This isn't a question of interpretation, this section is very specific. it is about defacing the flag, it is not about using an image of the flag on something else.

[Survival79]

This isn't a question of interpretation

The law is all about interpretation. Which is why judges and law enforcement officers have discretion.

So you think placing the flag over a pig is not defacing it?