Saintsfan Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 This isn't a question of interpretationThe 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?Its not defacing the flag because no part of the face of the flag is obscured. If anything, and I apologise my glibness here, its the pig that is being defaced. My reading of the code (and to an extent this is interpretation, given that I don't know for certain at this point) is that the code refers specifically to a flag in its literal sense- the piece of cloth, and how to care for it and use it. And some parts of the law are not about interpretation. There are legal absolutes and often laws and codes for that matter, can be read as is. And this section is one of those times! 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I disagree regarding the idea that the Razorback is being defaced. It is visible in its entirety, while the major elements of the flag have been eliminated in order to fit within the Razorback outline.the code refers specifically to a flag in its literal sense- the piece of cloth, and how to care for it and use it.Sorry, but wrong again... Section (i): The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard.This clearly indicates the code covers any item the flag may be printed or impressed upon. The intent of the Code is to protect both the image of the flag as well as the flag in its "literal sense" or natural form. "If things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and you've got a wet towel wrapped around your head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I disagree regarding the idea that the Razorback is being defaced. It is visible in its entirety, while the major elements of the flag have been eliminated in order to fit within the Razorback outline. The razorback isn't visible in its entirety, where is its eyes? for instance. The flag is not obscured in any way. yes the flag has been 'edited', but that is different from defacing it! 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I disagree regarding the idea that the Razorback is being defaced. It is visible in its entirety, while the major elements of the flag have been eliminated in order to fit within the Razorback outline. The razorback isn't visible in its entirety, where is its eyes? for instance. The flag is not obscured in any way. yes the flag has been 'edited', but that is different from defacing it!The eye is clearly visible.And trying to say that editing the flag is not defacing it is crazy! I don't know about you, but I think the other 39 states would be mighty sore about having their stars removed from the field of blue. "If things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and you've got a wet towel wrapped around your head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruk Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 Really feel this is being overblown from the fact that it 1. it isn't a for sure deal. 2. We as a country really need to lighten up!!!!!! I am totally against the degradation of an actual flag but this is totally just representing a symbol of it . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkerws Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 It looks like aguy who was bored. Not a real design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 I disagree regarding the idea that the Razorback is being defaced. It is visible in its entirety, while the major elements of the flag have been eliminated in order to fit within the Razorback outline. The razorback isn't visible in its entirety, where is its eyes? for instance. The flag is not obscured in any way. yes the flag has been 'edited', but that is different from defacing it!The eye is clearly visible.And trying to say that editing the flag is not defacing it is crazy! I don't know about you, but I think the other 39 states would be mighty sore about having their stars removed from the field of blue. Fair enough about the eye, but you get the point, razorbacks are not colored like that! And IT IS NOT THE FLAG THAT IS BEING DEFACED. Go look the word 'deface' up in a dictionary if you don't believe me. The flag is being used to deface the razorback. (in a humorous and respectful way!) Anyways I am now officially bored of this semantic argument! 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 deface: to mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigureThe flag certainly looks defaced to me.I'm not trying to perpetuate a cyclical disagreement, merely point out the fact that the flag (whether in its natural form or somehow reproduced in another format) is meant to be used in its entirety and not altered for any purpose. "If things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and you've got a wet towel wrapped around your head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 deface: to mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigureThe flag certainly looks defaced to me.I'm not trying to perpetuate a cyclical disagreement, merely point out the fact that the flag (whether in its natural form or somehow reproduced in another format) is meant to be used in its entirety and not altered for any purpose. For any purpose? The flag is altered and not used in its entirety all the time, and not in a disrespectful manner. Even in the helmet it is designed to honor an event, and those who died as a result of it. thats not at all disrespectful. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Survival79 Posted July 8, 2004 Share Posted July 8, 2004 deface: to mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigureThe flag certainly looks defaced to me.I'm not trying to perpetuate a cyclical disagreement, merely point out the fact that the flag (whether in its natural form or somehow reproduced in another format) is meant to be used in its entirety and not altered for any purpose. For any purpose? The flag is altered and not used in its entirety all the time, and not in a disrespectful manner. Even in the helmet it is designed to honor an event, and those who died as a result of it. thats not at all disrespectful. Just because it is done all the time doesn't mean it is right. I would venture to say most people do not know there is a US Code relating to the proper treatment and use of the flag.Altering the flag IS disrespectful, no matter what the purpose or intentions. Case closed. "If things have gone wrong, I'm talking to myself, and you've got a wet towel wrapped around your head." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.