Adolfo Martinez is certainly no role model. The man has a troubling history, recently highlighted by his 2019 conviction for tearing down an LGBT flag during “pride” month outside a liberal church in Ames, Iowa. According to KCCI, he received a lengthy 16-year sentence for hate crime arson, third-degree harassment, and reckless use of fire, largely due to his status as a habitual offender. It raises an important question: if burning an LGBT flag is deemed a hate crime outside the boundaries of free speech protection, then why should anyone be allowed to burn the American flag?
President Donald Trump is addressing this very issue. On a recent Monday, he signed an executive order that empowers the prosecution of individuals who burn the American flag, arguing that such acts seek to intimidate and instigate violence against others. “The American flag is the most sacred and cherished symbol of the United States of America,” Trump stated during an Oval Office press conference. “Desecrating it is uniquely and inherently offensive and provocative.” This sentiment echoes throughout the White House’s fact sheet accompanying the order, which underscores that flag desecration often occurs in contexts of public unrest and intimidation. Notably, flag burnings have been prevalent during protests, particularly ones linked to violent acts.
Trump’s order empowers the U.S. attorney general to “vigorously prosecute” those who desecrate the American flag. The consequences for flag burning, as Trump puts it, are stark: “If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail, no early exits, no nothing.” This comes against the backdrop of a Supreme Court ruling in 1989, which held that flag burning is a form of free speech that is constitutionally protected, albeit with a narrow 5-4 majority. This ruling stemmed from the case of Gregory Lee Johnson, who faced legal penalties after burning the flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention.
The Supreme Court maintained that government officials cannot prohibit expression just because it is deemed offensive or disagreeable. However, the White House argues that its current order targets flag burning specifically done with the intent to incite violence, suggesting this form of desecration may not enjoy the same protections.
Martinez’s actions are, in many ways, a mirror of Johnson’s defiance, and neither individual has given off favorable impressions. Martinez, for one, is described by those who know the case as anything but contrite. After tearing down the rainbow flag, he set it aflame in a strip club parking lot, exhibiting not just hostility but a glaring lack of remorse. Pastor Eileen Gebbie of the Ames United Church of Christ recalled that Martinez, during his trial, made threatening remarks, asserting desires to “cut us out of the land of the living.” His behavior even during court proceedings was troubling, as he targeted Gebbie with derogatory comments.
One might note the arbitrary nature of hate crime laws. Just as one person’s freedom fighter can be another’s terrorist, so too can perceived targets of free speech vary dramatically. The rationale behind prosecuting Martinez rests on the notion that his actions posed a threat to vulnerable groups. Yet, the very same scrutiny seems absent when it comes to flag burning in other contexts—specifically, when those actions threaten American symbols. A recent incident where a flag, representative of all Americans, was set alight by demonstrators in Washington, D.C., underscores this selective application of justice and response.
It begs the question of consistency: if Martinez deserves 16 years for burning an LGBT flag, then what should happen to those who burn the American flag? Shouldn’t both types of desecration face similar scrutiny? Or does the perceived importance of the symbols justify differing responses? The conclusion seems unavoidable that a double standard applies.
The debate shines a light on deeper societal issues. The American flag has far more historical significance than the LGBT flag, which is a much newer symbol. Yet the unequal treatment raises fundamental questions about where lines are drawn in the name of protecting free speech and civic values.
Trump’s approach is straightforward: prosecute flag burners aggressively, aligning with the belief that any act of burning meant to intimidate should not be sheltered under the First Amendment. For him, the flag is a national icon that demands protection. As he remarked, “If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail.” This stance may clash with the liberal narrative that champions free expression at all costs, but it sets up an intriguing dichotomy. The crux of the issue hinges on defined boundaries of free speech and expression, and the repercussions resulting from crossing them.
In conclusion, the actions by both Martinez and Johnson become a critical lens through which the inconsistencies of hate crime laws and free speech protections can be analyzed. The nature of their offenses raises the question of whether society is willing to evaluate acts of expression uniformly, irrespective of the symbol being burned or desecrated. It seems vital that a consistent approach to these actions and their subsequent consequences be established, whether examining LGBT symbols or the American flag itself. The legal systems and societal responses surrounding these cases must align, lest the foundation of free speech be put into a precarious position.
"*" indicates required fields
