Talk:United States Flag Code/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Untitled

In addition to putting the carbon copy of the flag code to the wikisource, it would probably be worth considering moving the summary of the flag code in 'Flag of the United States' here.--NicholasJones 21:10, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done (though it's much more than a summary). --ScottMainwaring 07:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Parody doesn't apply?

Removed the text: "*When the flag is used in any circumstance, all laws regarding protection of speech and parody do not apply." I can't find it in the Flag Code, and I'm willing to bet it's not there. --Benjamin Geiger 04:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yankees Hat - Copyright Issue?

Of course you have to pick on the Yankees. Isn't that a copyrighted photo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.14.248.62 (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

POV Pictures

So I removed the pictures of the flag with corporate symbols for stars and of Abbie Hoffman's flag shirt, as both have political connotations unrelated to the article's content.Elcocinero 16:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that such political uses of the flag are violations of the Flag Code. How is this "unrelated"? I think these images should be reinstated. --ScottMainwaring 22:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the images are unrelated to the article's content. They serve as examples of violations. I also think the images should be reinstated. JonathanFreed 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, two-to-one is not really a consensus, but I am going to restore the images because it has been a couple days and nobody else has voiced an opinion. I will try to change wording to better represent or identify the images as images of violations. JonathanFreed 13:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to join in (and make it "3 to 1"), I agree that the images in question (and the dumpster one) make useful points. However, would it be possible to also have one image of the flag being flown properly? Say, at the White House, or the Capitol building? Or, perhaps, being saluted whilst being raised? Huw Powell 18:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a picture of a flag being flown properly might be a good idea. I would suggest using a picture in a military setting rather than one on at the congress or White House. While these certainly ARE appropriate uses of the flag, with the exception of those that have philosophical opposition to the military in general,it seems a more "neutral" example politically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.8.62.218 (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No penalty?

4USC3 includes "a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court." Шизомби (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The supreme court has typically held that many acts that are gross violations of the flag code are protected by free speech. I would not think however this would prevent prosecution of people who violated sections of this code through negligence. For instance,if I decide to throw a flag on the ground to show my disdain for American policy,clearly that would be protected,on the other hand,if I let the flag fall off the front of my SUV and then driver over it and grind it in the mud,it would seem no speech I involved. I wasn't making a point,I was just careless. Could I be fined? While I could later argue that I was making a political statement,and maybe even getaway with it that's irrelevant to whether or not a crime or infraction has been committed.

I have found this section on the GPO website http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title4/chapter1_.html .

My (lay persons) reading of this document is that it only applies to the flags use in advertising. It notes that the passage which covered intentional desecration of the flag was removed.

1968--Pub. L. 90-381 struck out ``; or who, within the District of

Columbia, shall publicly mutilate, deface, defile or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt, either by word or act, upon any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, after ``substance on which so placed.

This seems to be a necessary change as it is very clear that the passage refers to actions which are protected under the first amendment. Does anyone happen to know if there is any law or precedent referring to disrespect of the flag through negligence. One might be able to argue that while intentional desecration of the flag is typically a act that carries a message (and is therefore protected) ,unintentional desecration may well not be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.8.62.218 (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New external link

The external link to the full text at the U.S. Government Printing Office was no good, so I replaced it with the full text link at the Cornell University website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsquared (talk • contribs) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Retired soldiers to salute

An older gentleman in my Toastmasters club says that now retired and discharged soldiers (and sailors, etc) are now supposed to salute the flag in civilian clothing, not use the hand-over-heart method that is standard. Has anyone else heard of this, and is there any proof anywhere either way? A page on the website USHistory.org says "Currently pending is a change that will permit veterans to continue to salute the flag, even when not in uniform." But what? —Scouter Sig 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a tradition that I have seen all retired Military do, but from what is written in the US Flag Code it is not required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.180.166 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Code was changed in July 2007 govtrack.us to allow veterans and non-uniformed active duty personell to render salute. I've added that information to the article. --Oldhippy1947 | Talk 18:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As best I see, that bill is still in the House. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Q. What is appropriate protocol for non-Americans in attendance who wish to be respectful but not pledge allegience to what is them a foreign flag? I was once told by a man knowledgeable in military protocol that respectfully standing at attention with my hands at my side was appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.177.233.86 (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the History section for the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. Veterans can now salute. I don't think the actual Flag Code has been updated yet. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Pubic Law 110–417 (Duncan Hunter NDAA for FY 2009), div. A, title III, sutitle J, § 595, Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4475.

§ 595. Military Salute for the Flag During the National Anthem by Members of the Armed Forces not in Uniform and by Veterans.

Section 301(b)(1) of title 36, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) through (C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:

‘‘(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

‘‘(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

‘‘(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and’’.

thought the above should help George Orwell III (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reigious and Work Related Exceptions to Saluting?

When a member of a religion that requires a head covering is saluting, are they required to remove their head covering? I am thinking along the lines of strict muslim women and Sikh (spelling?) men. Also, how do those that require helmets, like construction workers on a job site, soliders in the field, or persons that need assistive materials on their heads salute properly? I assume that it is permissible, evidenced by such things like the moon landings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.130.101 (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A member of the military is always "covered". That means they are either covered by the roof of the building they are in, or covered by the hat/helmet they are wearing when outdoors. When wearing a hat (known as a cover in the military), military members will render a hand salute to the flag.Bilcarter (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You can salute just fine with a head covering134.36.93.46 (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not when you are a male civilian citizen and "men with head cover should remove it and hold it to left shoulder, hand over the heart." Empath (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

howto tag

I was WP:BOLD and removed the {{howto}} tag from |date=August 2008. The article, while containing bullet point lists, did not fall under the "howto" tag. Discuss if still needed. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Standards of respect - User Comment

I am moving a comment user 173.48.49.248 posted in the section Standards of respect of the article.[1]

The following are INCLUDED in a much more lengthy "Flag Code" in Title 4 of the United States Code (and Title 36-display of flag during the national anthem).[2]

-- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 17:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Apollo trivia

This is out of place as the Moon is not and has never been under US jurisdiction and thus the USFC does not apply. --John (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not bothered if it goes, but I don't think the jurisdiction argument really applies. The astronauts were American, as was the flag. I have more sympathy with "this is irrelevant trivia". Anyway, you asked for a citation: http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm 63.81.2.130 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how out of jurisdiction is an argument that should influences the kind of information that is excluded from this article. As 63.81.2.130 (talk) said, the astronauts were Americans. But the real motivator to keep this fact is because the flag was designed and constructed by NASA, a governmental agency of the United States of America.

The Moon is not owned by anyone thus the Moon has no established etiquette when it comes to displaying flags. The U.S. government could have chosen to have the flag to fall freely if they wanted to. Yet the U.S. government decided to circumvent the The flag should always be permitted to fall freely rule due to special circumstances (0 gravity). The decision was based on aesthetics. That is why the fact should remain. Because the U.S. government did not need to ignore the flag should always be permitted to fall freely. It was a choice the government made. -- Joel M. Chat ✐ 14:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic, but you are confusing "0 gravity" with absence of atmosphere. 63.81.2.130 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As it says, right there in the lede, This etiquette is as applied within U.S. jurisdiction. In other countries and places, local etiquette applies. The Moon is clearly not US jurisdiction, Q.E.D.. See also Outer Space Treaty. --John (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes 63.81.2.130, you are right. I meant to say absence of atmosphere. -- Joel M.Chat ✐ 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes John, you are right, the rule applies within the U.S.A. and when displayed in other countries, that said country's flag etiquette overrides our own.

The argument I was trying to make was that the moon has no flag etiquette/rule, you can display the flag however you want to and the way you display it is your choice and the government choose to display it a certain way. It was never a discussion if the government was required to display it a certain way. I do realize the article are for rules within the jurisdiction of the U.S. and the way the statement is currently worded causes confusion about that. Anyhow, if it's removed I suppose it's fine. -- Joel M.Chat ✐ 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Proper Disposal

I had always heard that the property way to dispose of a flag is to first cut out the stars (separate from the strips). Then its just a piece of cloth and then it should be burned. This way its not burring the flag but just burning a piece of cloth. Can anyone confirm this for an addition to this article?

That is incorrect. -- JHP 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There may be some truth to it... In the british royal navy the Union Jack must be torn into very small pieces when no longer fit for use, and then destroyed. Other countries also have similar traditions 134.36.93.46 (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean cut the blue from the red and white stripes? That is the way i have heard if you are not pressed for time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.205.181 (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."

There is no official ceremony. A popular method is to cut the union out, then the stripes while repeating a poem or similar. After standing that long, I am not thinking about the flag, I am thinking about my arthritis. And burning is problematic with nylon flags. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Who rates a flag draped coffin?

I recently saw a photo of Geraldine Ferraro's coffin with the U.S. flag over it and since she never served in the military it had me wondering just who is allowed this honor?

Can anyone add specific information regarding something like: Only honorably discharged veterans, all or only federal elected officials?, Emergency Reponders?, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.149.9 (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not covered by the Flag Code. As best I see it, outside the military, there is no rule on this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Flag in Mourning Section

This section leaves out Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day. In which the flag is supposed to be flown at half-staff until noon, and then raised to full. This is what I was always told. And it even states this on the "Veterans of Foreign Wars" calendars I receive. Abalu (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Abalu

Can someone provide a source for flying the flag at half-staff on 11 Sept? I read the flag code on Cornell's site, and it says nothing about 11 Sept. Canute (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The authority is linked now but I don't believe this instance should be even specified. It is a case where Congress has mandated the President issue a Proclamation every year to that effect - which is covered under the bullet point...

The U.S. flag is otherwise flown at half-staff (or half-mast, on ships) only when directed by the President of the United States, a state governor (within that state), or the mayor of Washington, D.C. (within the district).

... if you want to get technical about it.

I'm sure it was a well-intentioned edit but it is only one example of the general type (directed by President, Governor, etc.) already covered and probably should not be its own bullet point but possibly an example of the general type instead if not removed completely. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

President...

The article says, "The U.S. flag is otherwise flown at half-staff (or half-mast, on ships) only when directed by the President of the United States, a state governor (within that state), or the mayor of Washington, D.C. (within the district)." I'm having trouble finding where the wikisource:United States Flag Code actually says that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

§7 (m) --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 09:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at that too. That says By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession...In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders..."' There's a bit more, but nothing in that paragraph provides general authority to the President to direct flags be flown at half staff for anyone other than dignitaries and officials. Section 10 does give the President absolute right to change the rules and customs in the Flag Code, but that has only happened once, when FDR authorized the use of the flag on things like foreign aid food shipments. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

§ 10 states "any such alteration or additional rule shall be set forth in a proclamation"; such as President Obama's proclamation honoring the victims of Newtown, CT, tragedy. I don't see the same for governors or the D.C. mayor, who appear to have the authority only to honor officials and service members, so that part looks wrong. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it says that any alteration to the flag code be set forth in a proclamation; that proclamation doesn't alter the flag code. (I'm not suggesting the President does not have the right, just that the article is incorrect in asserting that the flag code gives him the right.) Perhaps it's just a matter of practice rather than law. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Understandable exception?

This line: (An understandable exception was made during the Apollo moon landings when the flag hung from an extensible horizontal bar, allowing full display even in the absence of an atmosphere.)

Who says it's understandable? This seems to me to violate NPOV. ;-) 97.104.186.48 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

purpose of the Code

The flag's not to be used for advertising or on commercial enterprises, etc. Then why are there flag paper plates, cups, napkins? Flag shirts, pants, UNDERWEAR? Burning the flag by a civilian as an exercise of free speech would be prohibited under the Code, but not by the military, Boy Scouts, Girls Scouts or other so-called "patriotic" organization to do so? Hmm... interesting. Then of course the idea that the First Amendment makes prosecuting violations of the Flag Code difficult to nearly impossible. So what's the point of this lengthy (and interesting) article? If there's no active penalty for violating this act, why have it? To make veterans feel useful? I'm actually serious b/c I don't understand. Does anyone have a reasonable answer? 67.247.138.165 (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Standards of respect

I just noticed that the ref <ref>{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+4USC8 |title=4 U.S.C. § 8 (a) |work=[[United States Government Printing Office]] |accessdate=2008-04-27}}</ref> is not valid, and doesn't support the claim:

The flag should never be displayed with the union (the starred blue union) down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.

So while looking for one that does support it, I found this - [3], and it's pretty apparent that much of the section has been lifted directly from Title 4 with little - or none at all in some cases - alteration. I'm British, not American, so unfamiliar with legalities here, but can entire sections of the USC be reprinted verbatim, or is it copyvio?

I've also just noticed that I'm making this edit on 4th July - how appropriate... Chaheel Riens (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment

In the section, The Code, there is a sentence fragment. "The Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Boy Scouts of America, and the military." It's not immediately apparent as to what this is supposed to attach to. Humicroav (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Section Titled The Code

On a hunch, I confirmed that not everything in the section titled The Code is part of the U.S. Flag Code.

It should be made clear to readers what is part of the U.S. Flag Code itself and what is additional information.

By the way, I had to do my own search for The Code; the link to it in the references section (#11) is dead.

HankW512 (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Examples of Flag Code violations

Rocky Balboa draping the flag over his shoulders. "The flag should never touch anything beneath it." "The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery."
After September 11, 2001, many Americans flew the flag on their cars to the point that it began to shred. "The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way."

-- JHP 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Palin signed a flag
South Carolina flying a fully raised confederate flag above a US flag at half-staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.38.103 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

69.140.35.147 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proper display of the US flag

I added a photo of an improper display of the US flag, but it was removed. I put it right next to the relevant text. The Flag Code says: "When the United States flag is displayed with the flags of states of the union or municipalities, and not with the flags of other nations, the federal flag, which represents all states, should be flown above and at the center of the other flags. 4 U.S.C. § 7(e)." Both of these criteria are violated in the photo I added. The US flag is on the left; the Florida flag is in the center. I don't know what the one on the right is. Furthermore, all flags are at the same height. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It was me who reverted. The description is not sufficient to explain what is wrong, and it can't be assumed that a reader will know what is wrong with the picture - not being a US citizen I have no idea what the other flags represent, nor can it be assumed that I (or anyone in fact) will be familiar with which part of the code it represents. I'm not against the insertion - and with the correct description think it's good, but it needed correcting, or rather, further explanation to be relevant. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that photo appears to be a correct and proper display of the flag. According to the Flag Protocol wikipedia page: "When flown separately, a state's flag may be at the same height as the US flag, with the US flag to the left of the state flag, from the perspective of the viewer. When flown with several state flags, the US flag should be at the same height and to the flag's own right (viewer's left), or at the center of and higher than a grouping of state flags." There are several citations to confirm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_protocol#United_States — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.147.66.18 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Similar codes in other countries?

Do any other countries have anything similar to this? --202.78.240.7 (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I guess Nazi-Germany--88.130.42.168 (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, heaps of countries, including New Zealand. I served with the Royal Regiment of New Zealand Artillery on joint NZ-US operations in Australia. Ubique Tjlynnjr (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC) .

Entirely POV article

This article looks likes it's been entirely cleansed of any actual history or criticism of its subject. A terrible Wikipedia failure to provide context or anything outside one POV. 208.120.122.82 (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we could really use your help writing WP:Neutral text based on what wikipedia calls "reliable sources". So go ahead and be WP:BOLD, and we can talk about desired changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Simply repeating the code is not what we do

As of mid Sept 2017 this article contains very little original text drafted by Wikipedia editors, based on reliable material consituting a secondary, rather than primary source. Almost all of the text is copied, by full sentence and sentence fragments, straight from the code. And if not from the USC itself, then it was copied from some site that republished the text of the USC. This isn't what we do. We should be telling the story of the code, including any controversies, in a verifiable and neutral way, with due regard to the weight of sources used. I've started to expunge regurgitations of the code's text pursuant to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (search that for 'public domain' and 'laws'). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Using the flag for advertising

I propose to remove this addition again. Firstly, the summary is just that - a summary, and not to cover every point of the flag code. Secondly, it's a most inaccurate summary to include that portion. The American flag appears on millions of articles for advertising every year:

In all seriousness, a simple google for "American Flag in advertising" does bring back results that reiterate the section - that is shouldn't be done - but it brings back millions of examples of it happening. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to include this as part of a summary of the code, regardless of whether it's actually followed. My preferred solution would be to add a section about the code's relevance or lack thereof in modern culture. For example clothing and disposable items decorated with flag imagery are widely considered patriotic even though they do not follow the code, while acts such as flag burning are intentionally disrespectful. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Partly agree. It would be great if interested eds sought out WP:Reliable sources that discuss the flag code, its relevance, and actual practice as was suggested. Beware of asserting your own point of view. Not everyone sees flags on clothing as patriotic. Not everyone sees flag burning as disrespectful. Note I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any of these views because my opinion doesn't matter, and neither does any of yours. What does matter is what we can report from WP:Reliable sources. If you do that work, that will really improve this article and would be most welcome. But if you just want to argue about this section based on your own read of society, and your own assessment that including this part of the code is wrong because it doesn't match your observations, that's WP:Original research, and we don't do that. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)