OCR Text |
Show features@statesmaniusu.edu 1 - L_ j - - 4 \ Ra % • " • * * " * * • (By NATALIE CURTIS off writer The American flag - the banner freedom, democracy and justice • can burn in the flames of a political ^protest if that is how a person wants gto express their feelings or opinions. ;Currently in the United States, the act of burning the flag as a form of self-expression is not against the law. lowever, not everyone agrees this 'legal act is right. *J "What the flag represents isn't : . ^just about the government's actions; it's about when we first became a jcountry," said Rhett Peterson, senior Imajoring in business. "It represents Ithose that died for us and for the freedom we gained. It's not about a politician or about laws that are happening low. There is no reason to burn the lag. But on the other side of the issue, lAmanda Miller, sophomore majoring lin special education, said she thinks •people should be allowed to express themselves however they choose. "If we want to boast about ourfreeydom and everything else, people are •entitled to their opinions," she said. ("As long as they aren't infringing on lothers' rights, they should be allowed •to do what they want." t of X Friday, Katie McNeil, sophomore majoring in business, said she thinks it should be illegal because there is a "fine line between self-expression and disrespect." "Think of something that is so near and dear to you, that maybe you or people you know have risked their lives for," she said. "How could anyone burn that and call themselves American?" The controversy behind this issue led to the proposal of a constitutional amendment in 2006 which Utah Valley's Daily Herald Web site, Heraldextra.com, reported, "Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the amendment to come into effect, it needed to be approved in both houses by a two-thirds vote and then sent to state legislatures to be ratified. James Strickler, assistant professor in political science at USU, said the attempt failed by one vote and the last person to vote against the amendment was Sen. Bob Bennett from Utah. "It was a critical vote," he said, "and it is likely that if he had voted for the amendment, it would have passed." Heraldextra.com also stated Bennett said flag burning reached its height during the protests of the Vietnam War more than three decades ago and has since dwindled to what he said he considers a "nonproblem." "The only time there's any significant amount of flag burning is when the flag amendment is introduced and people go out and burn flags in opposition to the amendment," he said in the Web site's report. "For Bennett, changing the Constitution is simply is not warranted," Heraldextra.com stated. David Youd, sophomore in English, said people may not show respect for the nation, "But that's not the government's place to make it a law," he said. "That's just petty." The protection of burning the flag as a form of political protest dates back to the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson. Strickler said this decision came after an incident in 1984 at the Republican National Convention in Dallas. According to a report on CNN. com, a man named Gregory Lee Johnson was outside City Hall during a political demonstration. Johnson was handed a flag, Strickler said, and after he set it on fire, he was arrested under the Texas law which prohibited flag burning. Johnson was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $2,000, the report stated. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, who recognized Johnson's political act as speech, Strickler said, because burning the flag conveyed the message of "I hate America" and therefore was considered symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment. Although a state can outlaw certain speech, Strickler said, Texas could not provide a legitimate and good enough reason to prohibit the act of burning the flag. One specific point Texas argued, Strickler said, was that burning the flag could cause potential harm such as riots or fights but the court proved that in Johnson's i case, this was not a problem because itl was completely non-violent. Also, Strickler said, since different kinds of speech have different levels of protection and political speech has ' the highest level of protection, "peoplel can almost say anything they want," he said. The final decision in the case was that Texas did not have a good enough! reason to prohibit the act of burning the flag, he said, and so it remains protected under the First Amendmentl and there cannot be a law prohibiting [ the action. :•.$? \ See FLAGS, page 6 .*.' First look at Sundance films Not a 'Big Fan' The first film I saw Thursday was a screening of "Big Fan" starring Patton Oswalt and writ- Grade Dten/direct- "Big Fan" ed by Robert D. Siegel of "The Wrestler" fame. You know that saying "There's always someone worse off than you?". Well, Paul Aufiero (Oswalt) is that guy. Paul works in a parking garage booth, lives with his nagging mother and his only happiness in life depends solely on the success of the New York Giants football team. Paul is the saddest and most pathetic character ever created for the big screen. He spends his nights writing personal scripts to use when he calls into the local sports talk show. Like two immature geeks on an online video game message board, Paul and a man named "Philadelphia Phil" exchange heated football discussions back and forth. His Sundays are spent, not actually in the stadium, but with his buddy in the parking lot of the Giants' stadium watching the game on a tiny TV hooked up to the car battery. Paul tells everyone he's happy, but he presents himself like a person who just saw a group of inno- cent pupAaron Peck pies get slaughMovie Critic t e r e d . Oswalt is normally a funny man, but here he is pathetic. That's not a slight against the film, because he is supposed to be pathetic, the warning is don't expect a comedy, The film drags on at the pace at which Paul approaches his life. Virtually nothing happens in the first half of the film, The conflict comes when Paul and his buddy follow the star quarterback of the Giants to a club, where Paul gets the living crap beat out of him after he discloses they'd been following the player. Now what does Paul do? Does he turn his favorite player in and risk the Giants losing? Does he sue the thug for all he's worth? Do we really care? It's so harclto care for a character that doesn't care for himself. When he finally confronts his nemesis "Philadelphia Phil" the scene is confusing, and doesn't accomplish much other than showing us how immature these people really are. If I wanted to see this type of obsessive immaturity I'd go down to the local sports bar where it's free. Reel Reviews Dive into 'The Cove This is the first documentarythat I've seen at Sundance thus far, and it was worth it. If you have any heart Grade A or feeling 'The Cove" in your soul —•— you will connect with this film that is unless you live in Taiji, Japan (this will be explained shortly). "The Cove" focuses on one tiny secluded piece of water in the town of Taiji, Japan, where every year fishermen with large boats channel thousands of dolphins into a secluded bay. Here in the bay dolphins are sold to trainers from dolphin shows around the world. The dolphins who aren't picked are then led to the cove in question where they are slaughtered, - 23,000 every year. The man behind the film is Ric O'Barry. Ric feels personally responsible for the plight of these dolphins and captive dolphins everywhere, because he's the guy who made dolphins famous, He's the brain behind TV show "Flipper." After one of the five dolphins who played Flipper died, or, as Ric says it, "committed suicide/' he has vowed that his life work will be to free the dolphins and stop the slaughter in Taiji. Every year in Taiji thousands of dolphins are fun- neled into small Aaron Peck a bay. The Movie Critic fishermen of the village make a very decent living doing this. They are also very particular that no one sees what actually goes on in the cove where the dolphins are slaughtered. And so the quest of Ric and his crew begins as they try to find some way to film the atrocities taking place within the cove, Ric is well-known by the government and police in Japan for trying to stop these activities, which hinders the group's ability to sometimes get their work done. The documentary works when it.focuses on the town of Taiji and the cove. At points throughout, though, it loses its focus and goes off on a few tangents that could be covered in their own films, like the mercury toxicity in dolphin meat and how .the Japanese government doesn't mind selling it under the guise of it being whale meat, The dastardly deeds of the slaughtering cove are finally exposed in gruesome detail. It's one of those films that makes you want to do something, but you're not sure what. I'll tell you one thing though, I'll never go to Sea World again. Reel Reviews Bad Hair Day hair, we N o w here is Aaron Peck find out, comes the most Movie Critic f r o m interesting India documenwhere tary I've women seen since cut it off "King of in reliKong." Just g io u s like "King Grade 8+ rituals, of Kong", 'Good Hair' - ^ — ^ — a n d " G o o d , : :--then in Hair" takes ...•>;• a topic I formally knew turn it is sold. nothing about and sheds Chris Rock is great at some light o n it in t h e narrating, but at some most fascinating way. points eats up too much " G o o d Hair" is nar- of screen time with his rated' by comedian face. He makes the Chris Rock. One day famous black women he one of Chris' daughters interviews, except the walked up to him and immortal Maya Angelou, said "Daddy, why don't look pretty vain and egohave good hair?" This tistical as they explain started a quest where how much they spend to Chris delves into the cul- get long flowing hair. ture of the hair of black "Good Hair" does women. falter as it loses focus Straight flowing hair from the main issue of is apparently the envy the movie to talk about of the black female a large competition that community. It's a highly takes place in Atlanta, sought after commodity. Georgia every year The straighter the better. where contestants comSome women achieve pete in outlandish perforthis look by using a highly mances to be crowned concentrated substance the stylist of the year called relaxer. This by Bronner Brothers hair relaxer, Chris finds out, products. contains sodium hydroxEven though "Good ide as the main ingredi- Hair" is predominantly ent. Sodium hydroxide funny as Chris ROCK is highly toxic and can cracks joke after joke, cause scalp burns. it does show something that seems to be an idenThe other way to tity crisis among black get straight "beautiful" women. Most of them hair is with the weave. are ashamed of their Weaves can cost women natural hair. anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000. The weave <3 & Reel Reviews |