The Flag and the Prophet

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution asserts, “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…”

But freedom of speech is not an absolute right. The United States Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of free speech to a “short list of forms of expression – including obscenity, incitement and defamation – that are not protected by the Constitution.”[i]

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example used to demonstrate that not all speech is protected.

In 1984 Gregory Lee Johnson set the American flag on fire to protest the policies of President Reagan during the Republican National convention in Dallas, Texas. He was arrested for “intentionally or knowingly desecrating a state or national flag” in Texas, and convicted. Mr. Johnson was fined $200 and sentenced to a year in prison.[ii]

The case reached the Supreme Court in 1989. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, reversed the Texas law. The majority argued the “function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or… even stirs people to anger.”[iii] 

Justice Brennan wrote, in the Texas v Johnson, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive, or disagreeable…”[iv]

Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decision “is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson’s is a sign and source of our strength.”[v]

To the majority of Americans, burning the American flag is offensive, even blasphemous, but burning the American flag is protected speech in the United States.

Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 in response to the Supreme Court’s decision. The law stated, “Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.”[vi]

The federal law was struck down in United States v Eichman.

I am not a free speech absolutist. Personally, these are rules I try to abide by.

First, I would defend the right of any American citizen to burn the American flag – as political discourse.

But if I was going to attend a political rally, and found out someone was going to burn an American flag, I would use my right of free speech to persuade the individual from burning the flag.

Burning the flag would garner attention to a political cause, and would demonstrate the level of anger, but it would be counter productive because the visceral reaction of burning the American flag would negate the political argument that is being made.

If I were unable to persuade the individual from burning the flag, then I would exercise my right as an American citizen, and protest the burning of the American flag by not attending the rally.

Second, I understand that burning the American flag is painful to most Americans. Freedom of speech is an inalienable right, but I would not use that right to offend others. Personally, I would not use my right to speak freely to hurt other people.

Third, speech is used to persuade. I cannot think of an issue in which I can persuade an individual to change his opinion by burning an American flag.

Fourth, I have the responsibility to express an intellectually sound opinion. It is not enough to simply speak. I should be able to freely express a sound argument. However, flag burning is demonstrative speech, not expressive speech.

Unfortunately, respect for flags begins and ends with the American flag. In May 1998, NBC broadcast an episode of Seinfeld in which Kramer accidentally set fire to a Puerto Rican flag, and stomps on the flag to put out the fire. Kramer was not protesting any political issues involving Puerto Rico. The Puerto Rican flag was used as a comedic prop.

Americans are ethnocentric and are tone deaf to sensitive issues involving other cultures. The Seinfeld episode was a perfect example. It never occurred to anyone on the Seinfeld show, or in NBC that setting the Puerto Rican flag on fire, and stomping on it would offend Puerto Ricans.

The creators of South Park, in commemoration of their 200th episode, wanted to include all the famous people the show satirized since its inception in 1997. Matt Stone and Trey Parker wanted to include the Prophet Muhammad in the two-part episode. Stone and Parker were aware of Islam’s prohibition on depictions of Muhammad.

Their solution was to have Muhammad hidden in a U-Haul truck, then later in the episode appear dressed in a bear costume, thereby satisfying the prohibition depicting the Prophet. The two-part episode ended with a speech “about intimidation and fear.”[vii]

Comedy Central censored the episode.

This was not the first time Stone and Parker depicted Muhammad in South Park. The Prophet was included in a 2001 episode titled “Super Best Friends.”[viii]

In 2006, Comedy Central censored the episode “Cartoon Wars.” The episode was a response to “the violent aftermath of the illustrations of Muhammad published in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten.”[ix]

I used to be a fan of South Park. It was very funny, and there always was a hidden message beneath the outrageousness. I stopped following the show years ago, not because my taste in comedy changed, or the quality of the material declined. I only have four, maybe five free hours during the day, so I ration the amount of time I watch TV.

It is hard to objectively criticize or judge a show I did not watch. I cannot condemn something I did not see, and I cannot speak to the intent or message of the two-part episode.

Furthermore, as a free speech advocate, I cannot, in good conscience, condemn Stone and Parker.

Any depiction of the Prophet is strictly forbidden in Islam. This is Islamic religious doctrine. The depiction does not have to be negative. A benign depiction, such as a painting of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, would also be prohibited. The rationale for the prohibition is that paintings and statues could lead to idol worship.

In fact, Muslims would object to any artistic depictions of Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary for the same reason Muslims would object to a depiction of Muhammad. Muslims, as an article of faith, believe in all the prophets mentioned in the Old and New Testament.

Stone and Parker pride themselves on crossing the line of outrageous behavior through the cartoon characters on South Park. To them, there are no sacred cows. Stone and Parker used their freedom of speech to demonstrate against intolerance by depicting Muhammad disguised in a bear costume.

Again, I cannot condemn Stone and Parker, but I wished they had used better judgment. There had to be a better way to demonstrate against perceived “Islamic intolerance,” than depicting Muhammad dressed in a bear costume.

As an American, the best way to protest the depiction of Muhammad in South Park is to not watch the show. Muslims have the recourse to boycott the companies that run commercials during South Park. I can also write Comedy Central to express my outrage, but threatening Stone and Parker with violence is wrong.

I have not watched South Park in years, but if I was a loyal viewer, I could decide to boycott the show. That is what I did following the episode in which the Puerto Rican flag was burned and stomped. I stopped watching Seinfeld.

Americans consider the American flag to be sacred. Burning or defacing the flag is intolerable, but we cannot understand why Muslims would be angered by the depiction of Muhammad dressed in a bear costume. Mocking a religious icon is not the best way to celebrate our freedom of speech.

The war on terrorism has also been depicted as a clash of civilizations. We proclaim ourselves to be a great nation, and try to persuade other countries that our way of life is better, but we will never persuade Muslims of the greatness of our country if we use our freedom of speech to mock Muhammad, or argue Islam is inherently evil, or generalize all Muslims are terrorists.

One of the Danish cartoons that outraged Muslims depicts Muhammad wearing a turban and concealing a bomb in the turban. The theme of the cartoon could be construed as Muhammad is a suicide bomber, or Islam is predisposed towards terrorism. This intellectual argument is false.

First, the argument is illogical. If we follow this line of reasoning: Muhammad was the founder of Islam. Al Qaeda are Muslim. Al Qaeda are terrorists. Muslims are terrorists, therefore Muhammad was a terrorist.

Then we must also say that: Jesus Christ was the founder of Christianity. The Klu Klux Klan are Christians. The KKK are racists. Christians are racist, therefore Jesus Christ was a racist.

Second, the foremost enemy in the war on terror is Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a political movement. Al Qaeda’s goals are political, not religious. Their goal is to force the United States to withdraw their presence in the Middle East. Al Qaeda uses terrorism to achieve this goal. With the United States out of the Middle East, Al Qaeda would instigate political revolutions to overthrow “illegitimate” rulers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

Al Qaeda is not a religious movement designed to force the rest of the world to convert to Islam. Forcing people to convert to Islam is against religious doctrine. In the Holy Quran, it clearly states, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (2:256)

We, as Americans, are blessed to be living in a country where we are allowed to express ourselves without the threat of government intervention. But we also have a responsibility to use our freedom of speech with wisdom and respect. We cannot demonstrate our greatness by mocking others solely for the purpose of demonstrating we can get away with it.

As an American, I have the right to express myself by waving my middle finger. It is considered an obscene gesture. It is rude and childish, but it can be funny under certain circumstances. The gesture can also provoke a harsh response.

To Muslims, flipping the middle finger is the equivalent of mocking Muhammad. It is rude and childish and it provokes a harsh response.

We forget, or choose to ignore, that comedy can hurt.

Americans believe the American flag is sacred, and we become outraged when people in other countries set the American flag on fire, therefore we should not be surprised when Muslims are outraged when we insult Muhammad, and shield ourselves with the First Amendment.

Freedom of speech should be used responsibly.


[i] “The Court and Free Speech,” New York Times, April 24, 2010.
[ii] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[iii] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[iv] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[v] “Can Flag Burning to Send a Political Message Be Made a Crime?” Austin Cline, About.com Guide.
[vi] Public Law 101-131, 101st Congress, 1989.
[vii] “South Park Episode Altered After Muslim Group’s Warning,” Dave Itzkoff, New York Times, April 23, 2010.
[viii] “Baddest Toon on the Block (Again),” Joshua Alston, Newsweek, April 22, 2010.
[ix] “Baddest Toon on the Block (Again),” Joshua Alston, Newsweek, April 22, 2010.