I guess it comes down to the details:

if people want to burn their own property,, books, flags, etc,, I Dont really care,,,,

IT doesnt offend me as it is 'their' property

if they wish to burn or cause destruction to others property, that is offensive AND illegal

if books are 'banned' , as in literally not permitted to be sold anywhwer,, thats offensive

if a particular library, store, etc,, wishes to no longer sell or make available certain items,,,thats not offensive

Burning them isn't banning them,permanently?
Watch Fahrenheit451!
Whole Movie is on Youtube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZriW3CPU9G4

So, it's ok with you if certain places ban books, as long as they're still available elsewhere? How come?

A flag is really just a pride thing, cool that you have pride in your flag...But don't piss and moan because I do not.

Burning a book is a bit more serious, I mean, let's be honest...Flags can be produced in droves, but what if that is the only copy of the book known to man? A collection of ideas, concepts, and maybe even some truths versus a colorful cloth?

Come on.

In spite of this excellent post I have to say book burning because I view it as an act of oppression, never a good thing...Although I am against flag burning because I think there are more effective ways to protest, I would consider laws created to ban it unconstitutional...

yes

because I do believe in choice, and if those places have the responsibility and possibly financial risk involved in acquiring those products,, they should be able to choose which products they will take the responsibility and risk for,,,


in essence, in their acquisition, they become the property of whomever acquired them

They're taking away the choice of library patrons, though. They're making the choice for them about what books they're able to check out.

they already do that,,,,

certainly not EVERY book ever published is available at every library,,,,or within every library district

these are the choices they already have to make and do make daily

the library is a privilege, there are still book stores, and ecommerce,, amongst the three,, choice is pretty much still abundant

Interesting. You're in favor of censorship as long as it's available somewhere else. Is it just certain types of books that you're ok with being banned? Or certain reasons?

I do believe in PERSONAL censorship

I should be allowed to decide what I Want to acquire or not acquire,,,,that does not affect anyone else except those who feel they should be able to dictate to me what I offer them,,,,

the reasons should be up to the person(s) with the responsibility of acquiring / maintaining the products,,,

ESPECIALLY in the internet age,, burning paper really does little to truly eliminate AVAILABILITY,,,

We're not talking about one person deciding what they want to read/not read. We're talking about places like libraries who are making the decision for many people. Their decision affects many people.

yes, and they have that responsibility, but that doesnt hold them hostage to pleasing the interests of EVERY patron or potential patron,,,,

with the authority/responsibility of maintaining and acquiring merchandise/products,, should come the choice/privilege of decideing what products to acquire,,,,

patrons have the CHOICE to patronize elsewhere

The people I spend time with are VERY loyal to this country & her flag, their religion of choice, well mannered, respectful to all & respect the rights of others. Working, reading & traveling is where I see proof of all the people contrary to those standards. I deal with them as I HAVE to.

This is an excellant post and to be honest its hard to pick. Both are terrible. My grandparents where from Germany also, they were so proud to be Americans they flew a US flag everyday they were alive. In todays computer age burning books like the flag is symbolic, however my grandfather told me stories about the nazi's burning books in the town square to foster fear. This subject draws strong emotions from both sides very good topic Im enjoying the others remarks.

I'm not really offended by either as either could be an act of free speech. I think free speech is the most important of our rights.

A government isn't a flag. It's an idea. Burning the flag has no effect on the idea. No one died for a flag, they died for the idea.

Books, on the other hand contain information. If the informations is true, even if it was wiped out completely, someone else would come along and discover it again.

The flag is the MAIN SYMBOL of this countries ideals.
"No one died for a flag"
Tell that to a Marine that was on Iwo. I knew one, he saw that flag go up. REspect your opinion, but CAN NOT AGREE.

I think the act of burning a book or a flag is an attack on the person or persons they represent. The specific loss is usually small and symbolic. It may be done to exercise control or fear over the owners or those who are witnessing the attack. And I really dislike bully tactics.

Either seems counter productive since it might get people to cower at the time for some time but as in all dramatic acts it tends to create more resistence than it gathers support.

I personally see burning a flag as generally more offensive since it rarely offends only one person/author but of course that is not always the case since some books, especially religious books for instance represent whole blocks of thinking even beyond borders, and flags usually represent much greater sacrifices.

It is very hard for me to see my countries flag burned as I see it a deeply personal insult. But sometimes dier circumstances demands extream symbolic gestures and if it generates people into a discussion of what my country must consider is the view of others then that is what the flag represents to me. The freedom to express beliefs, feelings, and sometimes facts.

I remember one time, in a time when women still were very afraid to speak up about rape, having a very powerful demonstration by women in a group refuseing to stand for a flag salute lead by a man who was a rapist. While seperate reports had been ignored the group report was enough to remove this person from his position of power almost immediately and have him prosecuted.

But, the symbol is not what's important. It's just a piece of cloth. What a nation means is so much more than can be contained in a simple symbol. What's important is what the symbol stands for.

The men that fought in WWII didn't die for a piece of cloth. They died for freedom. They died fighting tyranny. They died for justice and equality. It's these ideas that are important.

as ex wife and sister to two vets, I Agree. Neither of them would say they were fighting for the flag,, t hey would both say they were fighting for americans,,,

which to some, are still two seperate entities (The flag, and americans,, that is)

Understand your view & respect your opinion.

Talking to those that were THERE, they spoke of the flag first. Simple people like simple symbols. My "view".