pression of opinion was-and the court agreed with him—within the ambit of the first amendment.

Mr. ROGERS. We will include that in the record at this point, then. Thank you, Mr. Speiser.

(The decision referred to follows:)

State v. Kent

The Defendant was charged with violating Section 275-6 of the Revised Laws of Hawaii. The charge is substantially in the language of the statute and states that the Defendant “did publicly defile, defy and cast contempt upon the flag of the United States by displaying a representation thereof, and by certain other words and actions ***"1

The facts of this case are not in dispute.

The Defendant is a student at the University of Hawaii under the East-West Center grant program. In March of this year, he was the president of a campus organization called the Political Affairs Club.

The Club scheduled an open rally in Hemenway Hall on the university campus between the hours of 12 noon and 1 p.m. Permission for this rally was obtained from the university's Bureau of Student Activities. The subject matter of the rally was to be a discussion of American participation in Viet Nam.

The rally was held as scheduled. It was attended by about 300 to 500 people, including students and a number of uniformed and plainclothes police officers. The officers had arrived about an hour earlier. The hall was substantially but not quite filled to capacity.

In preparation for the rally, the Defendant and one Lombardi (who was similarly charged) put up several posters on the wall of the hall near the speaker's platform with masking tape. One was a rectangular placard in color which resembled the American flag but differed in the following respects: stars in the field of blue were replaced by dollar signs; the red and white stripes at their ends away from the field of blue (right ends) were pointed with specks of red at the points; and the left ends of the stripes, instead of meeting the field of blue or the left edge of a normal flag, met a solid field of gray spotted with red.

This placard had not been drawn by the Defendant. It had used at a rally two weeks previous, and been in the possession of the Defendant since.

A Vietnam National Liberation, that is, Vietcong, flag of cloth was also pasted on the wall.

Just as one Sarrant, the master of ceremonies, was about to begin the rally, a Miss Evard walked out of the audience and tore down the Vietcong flag, tried to tear it by biting at it. Sarrant attempted to retrieve it. Eight to ten people engaged in a mélee over this incident, but the police moved in and quieted them down.

The Defendant then made his talk, using as a starting reference an article by a former United States sergeant who had fought in Vietnam as a member of the "Green Berets". The tenor of the article and of the Defendant's speech was highly critical of American participation in Vietnam.

A young man in the audience who had been heckling the Defendant during his speech was invited to the stage by the Defendant. After making some commets, the young man tore down the placard resembling the American flag. Again, there was some pushing and pulling, which was broken up.

The young man asked the Defendant whether the placard was the American flag. The Defendant replied that "that is what it has become", that LBJ had desecrated it by napalming and mutilating women and children in Vietnam, desecrated it in Cuba and in Santo Domingo. Boos, jeers and catcalls from the audience ensued.

A David Kuh tore down the placard resembling the American flag a second time. Again a short struggle ensued, which was broken up by the police.

An Anthony next spoke. Kuh challenged him to debate, and a confused discussion followed. Miss Evard then spoke, stating that her father and uncle were fighting in Vietnam and that she was proud of America. The Defendant received the impression that she was labelling opponents of American Vietnam policy as traitors, so he responded by saying that he loved America, that if he were a betrayer who did not love America he would not take the trouble to get himself involved, that he did not want to see people like Miss Evard's father and uncle killed in Vietnam.

A WAC went up to the stage and spoke in support of United States policy. A Bill Woods also took the microphone but spoke on internal problems within the Political Affairs Club. A question and answer period ensued, shortly after which the rally was ended.

The Defendant was then arrested for desecrating, in the words of the Sgt. according to the Defendant, "a caricature of the American flag."

By motion for dismissal made prior to trial and by motion for judgment of acquittal made after the government's presentation, serious constitutional questions on the validity of the statute on its face and as applied have been raised. The Court commends all counsel involved for their presentation on the constitutional questions raised. However, under the view taken of this case, it becomes unnecessary to pass on them.

In the words of the statute and the charge, the allegation is that the Defendant did "defile, defy and cast contempt upon" the flag of the United States. The import of these words is that the actor, whether by words or conduct, evinced a purpose to dishonor the flag.

It is true that the statute does not contain the words "wilfully" or "intentionally" defile, defy and cast contempt upon the flag. However, the words "defile, defy and cast contempt" in themselves carry an inherent meaning of an attitude of mind which intends shame and dishonor upon the flag.

As was said in State v. Schlueter, 23 A. 2d 249, a New Jersey case in which a similar charge was involved, "a blind man stumbles over the flag and, not knowing what it is, walks upon it and then casts it aside. Has he 'trampled' upon the flag? Has he 'defaced' or 'defiled' it? Has he 'dishonored' it? We think not; because those words carry with them, by inherent meaning, an attitude of mind which is wholly lacking in the supposed instance."

The New Jersey Court said that the words defacing or defiling has an intendment of "dishonor", imputing "a lively sense of shaming or an equivalent acquiescent callousness."

In the case before us, whether the Defendant defiled, defied or cast contempt upon the flag, that is, whether the conduct of the Defendant was with purposeful attitude of dishonoring the flag, must, of course, be determined in the context in which his conduct occurred.

I find that there has been no showing of such conduct.

First, although not determinative, there is the Defendant's statement that he had no intention of defiling, defying or casting contempt on the flag.

Second, whatever may be argued as to whether the placard, Prosecution's Exhibit 1, does or does not constitute a "representation" of the American flag under the statute which speaks in terms of any picture by which the person seeing the same, without deliberation, may believe the same to represent the flag, the exaggerated distortions are sluch that it is clear that the intent of the Defendant was not that it represent the American flag nor that it portray a contemptous attitude, towards the American flag, but rather it is abundantly clear that Prosecution's Exhibit 1 was displayed by the Defendant with the intent that it symbolically portray his violent disagreement with present American participation in Vietnam. According to Officer Howell, the Defendant's answer in reply to the question, "Is that the American flag?" was: "That is what it has become *** LBJ has desecrated it by napalming and murdering women and children in Vietnam." It is not necessary to agree with the Defendant for this Court to arrive at the conclusion that the Defendant, far from intending a desecration of the American flag, was himself accusing others of doing the same.

Third, at the rally, in reply to an inference that those of Defendant's posture towards American particpation in Vietnam were traitors to our country, the Defendant's statement was that he, too, loved America, that he would not be involving himself in the current Vietnam controversy if he didn't care enough about our country. The flag is an emblem which, if it can be said to represent anything, is a symbolic representation of the United States as a nation, a unified body politic embracing the bad as well as the good and welded into one by common bond of territory and history. It is not symbolic of segmented fragments of the American nation, whether they be American military might or race riots. Rocky mountain majesty or night life in Las Vegas, Vietnam involvement, or peace marches against it. To this concept of the flag as symbolic of the entirety of what we call America, the defendant evinced no contempt or defiance. Rather, to his way of thinking, he wished to gain respect for it.

In short, the nature of the display and the circumstances under which the display was made are such that there has been no showing that the defendant's conduct was such as to evince an attitude of dishonor to the American flag.

The Court therefore finds that the prosecution has not sustained its charge. Mr. SPEISER. Mr. Chairman, I have appeared before many committees of Congress, and I think today was noteworthy in two respects: One, the fact that I think it was an educational dialog for me, and I hope for members of the committee, and secondly, in an area which I know is of great concern to a great many Americans, the matter was handled in as dispassionate and as rational kind of way as this hearing was conducted.

I think each of the members of the committee, no matter what their points of view, were interested in my view, and it was one of the best experiences I have had in appearing before a congressional committee. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, and I hope the committee will always try to consider these things in a calm and dispassionate manner.

Our next witness is Mr. Edmund G. Lyons, vice chairman, National Americanism Commission, of the American Legion, Maurice T. Webb, director of the National Americanism Commission and John S. Mears, assistant director, National Legislative Commission.

Proceed in your own manner.

STATEMENT OF EDMUND G. LYONS, VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL AMERICANISM COMMISSION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION; ACCOMPANIED BY MAURICE T. WEBB, DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL AMERICANISM COMMISSION; AND JOHN S. MEARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION

Mr. MEARS. Mr. Chairman. I know the hour is late. If I might take the time, however, I would just like to say that I hope our decorum here this afternoon will be symbolic of the American Legion's regard and respect for this subcommittee.

Mr. ROGERS. We are sorry it took us this long to get here, but you know how these things go.

We certainly appreciate your appearance and giving us the benefit of your own thinking in this matter.

Mr. McCLORY. I think we ought to explain, we have had a number of witnesses, but this is the only witness we have had against the bill, so we spent a little more time with him.

Mr. LYONS. You will notice that the heading of our statement indicates we are here in connection with H.R. 271. That was merely the title of the notice we received. We are not here to advocate the passage of any specific bill. People were here this morning pleading for and in behalf of specific bills. We want a bill that will make it a crime to desecrate the flag of the United States.

Mr. ROGERS. We have had at this point over 55 introduced, so we understand that what you want is "a bill."

Mr. LYONS. I hope by the time we are finished, you will understand our position and know what our objective is.

I may say prior to reading the statement, I am not an attorney, and thus my testimony does not contain any citations or legal briefs, but I am expressing the opinion of 32 million Americans.

Revulsion against the desecration of the flag in any way whatsoever is not new to the American Legion. We have had resolutions on this subject before us for many, many years.

Usually our pleadings fell on deaf ears because there was no assembly or forum to whom we could express ourselves. Thanks to this subcommittee the chairman and the members of the subcommittee-we now have an opportunity to speak about it on behalf of 31⁄2 million Americans.

I might also say, Mr. Chairman, that we of the American Legion believe that freedom without some form of authority would result in tyranny. Thus, we are a nation of laws. If we were to just have unlimited, unabridged freedom, certainly we would have chaos, anarchy and tyranny, and would have no semblance of law and order in any way whatsoever.

We in no way want to abridge the freedom of speech section of the first amendment. We would stand aside to no other organization in our determination to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the entire Constitution of the United States.

It is one of the principles upon which the American Legion was founded, to uphold and defend the Constitution. And it is under the authority of that Constitution that we appear here today; the right to petition our Government. We have heard today about people being allowed to conduct what is called symbolic acts. Is it not a symbolic act for those who believe in the flag and love the flag, to stand up to defend the flag? And, if the end result of such action at one of these so-called rallies is that a riot should ensue, who would be responsible for it? Those who are desecrating the flag, or those who are attempting to defend and save the flag?

There are two sides to this particular coin, and we believe those who love the flag and want to stand up for the flag and want to uphold the Constitution have rights and privileges, too, and it is in that vain that I will read my statement.

The American Legion appreciates this opportunity to present testimony in support of legislation which would make it a Federal crime to desecrate the flag of the United States of America. The 311⁄2 million members of the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary have been shocked and dismayed to see our revered flag treated with degradation in recent months.

This is the flag under which Americans have fought in four wars during this century to make certain that Old Glory is respected and revered not only in the United States of America but throughout the world. Now we are confronted with individuals in this country who have taken it upon themselves to cast aspersions on and to desecrate this precious symbol of freedom. They have done this, in most instances, under the guise of opposition to our Government's policy in Vietnam. The underlying motives in many cases, however, are not associated with the Vietnam war at all.

Regardless of the reasons they give, there is a compelling need for Federal legislation which will penalize those individuals who desecrate our flag.

There are some who have suggested that the punishment for desecration of the flag of the United States of America is best attainable through State legislation.

The American Legion does not follow the line of thinking that legislation to punish those persons who desecrate our U.S. flag should be the exclusive province of the several State legislatures. If every State passed legislation to make it a crime to desecrate the flag of the United States, the laws would not necessarily be uniform and would inevitably vary from State to State. The Legion is not opposed to local legislation on this subject but we believe that a uniform Federal statute should be enacted to protect the flag which has meant so much, not only to citizens of the United States, but to men and women everywhere who long for freedom.

And I say, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that I think we have legislation that protects our currency. You can't destroy or mutilate our currency. We have Federal legislation in this area. I think it is important that we have legislation to protect the flag, which is the symbol of freedom for all Americans and for many other people in nations throughout the world.

With your permission, I would like to cite to you some specific instances where the flag of the United States of America has been defiled and desecrated.

One such incident occurred at a recent meeting on the campus chapter of the Students for a Democratic Society at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. The flag was spat upon, ripped, and trampled, while some students cheered and others displayed no emotion whatsoever. About 65 people were in attendance on that occasion to hear Joffre Stewart, a self-described "anarchist-pacifist" from Chicago, and about 10 of those present gave rousing approval to his acts of desecration.

The students who introduced the speaker mentioned the fact that Stewart had previously burned the American flag but added, "He has agreed not to burn the U.S. flag during this program."

After appealing to students to "uproot the power structure completely," by not cooperating with the State, Joffre Stewart unfolded an American flag and carried out an apparently rehearsed ritual. According to an eyewitness account the following events occurred:

Unfurling a small American flag approximately 18 x 12 inches, rolled on a 24inch stick, Stewart said: "I said I wouldn't burn the flag tonight and I won't." Turning to a 45-degree position facing away from the audience, standing to the right of the podium, Stewart spit twice on the flag. He then assumed a position to the left of the podium, again at a 45-degree angle *** Stewart again spit twice on the flag. He then tore the American flag apart, threw the American flag to the ground and stepped on it.

We have had a rash of high school teachers and college professors who claimed that desecration and mutilation of the flag by them was not really desecration at all-that it was done to prove points in logic and semantics-that the flag is only a symbol and a piece of cloth and should not be mistaken for the country itself or any of its power. It was even suggested that reverence for our flag-the symbol of our heritage would relegate us to the level of voodooism. Öne such incident occurred in a suburb of Los Angeles, another in Indiana, and there have been more.

A teacher of literature in a suburban Chicago high school gave still another outlandish reason. He desecrated the flag to show students that the Nation's symbol is a cherished object. He placed an American flag on the floor and stepped on it. "You people are offended, are you