Tripod Home | New | TriTeca | Work/Money | Politics/Community | Living/Travel | Planet T | Daily ScoopPOLITICS & COMMUNITY
Warren Apel
interviewed by Brian Hecht on 14 November, 1995
Clicking here may soon be illegal.
Warren Apel is the creator of the Internet Flag Burning site.
Tripod: Flag burning -- didn't that go out of style a few years ago with George Bush?
WA: You'd think so. And in fact, it was voted down in Congress in 1990. It's back now, in the Republican-dominated Congress. The House has already passed the amendment, and the Senate will be voting on it any day now.
Tripod: Really? Tell me about the legislation that's on the table right now.
WA: Laws against flag burning are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said that twice. The only way to make sure that laws like this will be Constitutional is to change the Constitution and tack on the words "It's okay to make laws against flag burning."
Tripod: And add those into the Constitution?
WA: Into the Constitution. So this would become one of the amendments. Amendments to the Constitution -- this isn't done every day. This would be, I think, the twenty-fourth.
Tripod: Twenty-seventh, I think.
WA: Twenty seventh? Is that it? I used to know that.
Tripod: That's okay. I'll go back and fix it if I'm wrong.
WA: This is a really draconian way to enforce a law, especially one that has been upheld in the Constitution.
Tripod: Now, what's the motivation of people who are supporting this amendment?
WA: I'm going to hazard a guess -- my feelings on this are that the Republican-dominated Congress is about to, in the next couple of months, drastically cut veterans' benefits. They're trying to cut money from the budget to make it balance. And veterans' benefits are a large amount, and they fall into the category of entitlements. The Republicans are really quick to talk about unwed black mothers and how they're leeching off the system. They don't really mention veterans. Because veterans get mad when you talk about stuff like that.
Tripod: ...And they usually vote Republican.
WA: And they vote Republican. And they all vote. Whereas minorities and people on welfare don't vote as much and as often as angry right-wing veterans. So when you start taking away their [entitlements], they're going to get angry, and they're going to vote you right back out of office.
So, in an effort to kiss their butts, they're passing this law, something the veterans have asked for. It's an emotional issue. I know a lot of veterans who agree with me, who say they fought for the freedom the flag stands for, not for the flag itself.
Tripod: Now, let's get this straight. You run the "Burn this Flag" page, but you don't want anyone to burn a flag. What's the point?
WA: I'm not saying I don't want anyone to burn a flag. I am saying I'm not encouraging flag burning. And I personally don't want to burn the flag. I want the freedom to burn the flag. I want to live in a country where people who express themselves against the government don't get put in jail.
Tripod: I understand the point, but are you criticized for using alarmist tactics?
WA: Yes, yes. I admit they're a little graphic, but they're catchy. And, you can access all the information on the page, read all about it, learn all the history, without actually seeing it burn. And if you want to view it burn, you can. The best argument in favor of my tactic is "This is digitized, fake picture of a fake flag with fake flames on it."
Tripod: So no flags were harmed in the filming?
WA: Exactly. But it is likely to be illegal in a couple of months. Creating that picture and viewing that picture is likely to be illegal.
Tripod: So it's not just proper flags, but representations of flags as well?
WA: Well, no. The amendment doesn't define "flag." It leaves it up to Congress and the states to each define the flag. So we're going to have 50 different versions.
Tripod: And it could outlaw destroying a representation ...
WA: Very definitely it could. If you look at the U.S. code for that, the definition is about three pages long. It includes any depiction, including things that are not flag-shaped, but just red, white, and blue with a star on it.
Tripod: So the opening of any used car lot, those banners?
WA: Exactly. T-shirts, socks.
Tripod: People always say "Once you outlaw flag-burning, who knows what will be next" -- well, what will be next?
WA: I think they're going to a lot of trouble to make this one specific thing illegal. I don't believe in the whole slippery-slope argument. But it's a gradual encroachment on our rights. If I was to guess what type of right they'd be going after next, I'd say, they're definitely going to hit the Internet. Pornography.
Tripod: Do you know how many people actually burn flags each year? I mean, is it a big problem?
WA: The circulating number right now is less than an average of seven per year. And that, I think, is probably higher than it really is because of the number of instances in 1990, the last time they tried to pass [an amendment], there were a lot of instances, and that probably increased the average.
Tripod: When and why were you inspired to create this page?
WA: In March of this year, I read for the first time that [the amendment] had been introduced in the House and Senate. I was opposed to it the last time, and I let my friends know. This time, I figured I'd let the world know.
Tripod: What's the most offended remark you've gotten in response to your page?
WA: Oh, yeah. That would be "I'm going to find you and kill you, you unpatriotic bastard."
Tripod: Whoa. You must have responded positively to that comment.
WA: I wanted to, and it was from an America Online user. The account got closed before I could respond.
Tripod: I see. And was he crying about his free speech being violated also?
WA: I imagine he would have.
You can view the the Flag Burning homepage at http://www.indirect.com/www/warren/flag.html
Or, to learn about issues and candidates, check out Tripod's own Political Playbook -- or our special report on flag burning.
Map | Search | Help | Send Us Comments
