Remarks by Douglas C. Clifton

Executive Editor, The Miami Herald

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. House of Representatives

In the long debate over this issue of flag desecration the House and Senate have heard from a long line of witnesses, many of them combat veterans and many of those heroes.

So in deference to those veterans on both sides of the issue who appeared at earlier hearings, let me state clearly that I am no hero. I served as an artillery officer in Vietnam during the Tet offensive. My unit helped liberate Hue, shot in support of the 101st Airborne Division in some of its toughest fights and prowled I-Corps from Quang Tri City to the DMZ. But like thousands of young men just like me, I struggled with my fears, overcame them, did my duty and, 12 months later went home, thankful to be in one piece.

Most of those with whom I served were what I call quiet patriots. We weren't gleeful about leaving our families - in my case a three month-old daughter and a wife of two-years -- nor were we eager to put ourselves in harm's way. But neither would we think of cutting and running or faking conscientious objection or illegitimately dodging what we believed was the obligation of citizenship.

Some of us intellectually grasped the import of "duty, honor, country" but the rest of us just felt it. And to most of us free speech was little more than the right to gripe, gripe about the C-rations, the mail service, the CO, the war itself.

Back home others were griping too, about us and the war we were fighting. They cursed us, called us baby killers and even, on occasion burned the flag we were so dutifully defending.

I would be exaggerating if I told you I went to Vietnam in 1967 to defend those protestors' right to burn the flag. But I know this, if I were called back into service today it would be precisely for that reason. That's because over the past 30 years I've developed an understanding of the First Amendment that is exceeded only by my reverence for it.

I live in a community that offers daily reminders of how precious free speech is and demonstrates the extremes to which one will go to live in a land that cherishes it. Almost every day The Miami Herald reports the arrival of another boatload of Cuban or Haitian refugees, another tragedy at sea, another titanic struggle to flee oppression and find comfort in a country that allows you to criticize your government and boast about it.

We in Miami have a greater interest in what goes on in Latin America and the Caribbean than the rest of the country, so you may not be familiar with a story that has been getting heavy coverage in my paper: The in-camera trial, conviction and sentencing of four Cuban intellectuals. Their crime? Having the temerity to publish a pamphlet titled "The Homeland belongs to all.' In Cuba expressing such a view is an offense punishable by imprisonment, in this case fom 3 1/2 to 5 years.

But what does that egregious curtailment of political speech have to do with a ban on flag burning?

The answer is rich and deep and, has been laid out repeatedly in the hundreds of editorials and columns written by members of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the organization I represent today.

Flag burning, loathsome as I believe it is, is nothing more than political speech expressed in different form and, as such, enjoys the same First Amendment protections. Would we amend the constitution to prohibit verbal denunciations of America? I can't believe we would even consider it. Then how can we amend it to prohibit symbolic ones?

The Supreme Court saw no distinction between the two when it struck down the Texas flag burning law.

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment," the court wrote, "it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.''

What is desecration of the flag if not the expression of a disagreeable idea?

And what is more disagreeable in this robust and wonderful democracy of ours than prohibiting expression of any idea? Of the many freedoms Americans enjoy, those enumerated in the First Amendment most clearly define our national character. We are free, free to worship as we wish, free to speak as we wish, free to write as we wish, free to think as we wish. Our freedom fuels our spirit, stokes our ambition, energizes us.

The 45 words of the amendment have stood unchanged for 210 years. And now we propose to amend them, amend a set of principles that are the envy of the world. Why? To stop people from burning the flag? Have I been missing something? The last flag I saw burned as an act of protest was during that war I fought in more than 30 years ago.

Yes, it offended me but in a peculiar way it made me feel better about what I had been called to do. And had the flag burners -- under constitutional mandate -- been jailed for their defiance I would have felt worse.

I spoke earlier about how dissent is treated in Cuba. It might interest you to know that burning the Cuban flag is treated the same way. You go to jail for it. Why would we want to model our First Amendment behavior on theirs?