FLAGS ARE A feudal phenomenon.nNot until the French tricolor wasnthe flag a focus of nationalism. Evennduring the 19th century, flags werenused mostly in military, naval, andndiplomatic contexts, and were seldomnseen by civilians. Often there was notnone national flag but a variety forndifferent uses and occasions. Americansndid not pledge allegiance to thenflag, they swore to uphold and defendnthe Constitution—the swearing havingndefinite overtones of Christianitynand the Anglo-American legal tradition,nunlike the secularist Pledge ofnAllegiance.nNot until the age of massnconscription — World War I fornAmerica — did the flag itself become anfixed focus of patriotism. Nevertheless,nthe Stars and Stripes are now firmlynestablished as such, a symbol of Americanncommunity in relation to the restnof the world, consecrated by the bloodnof free men. Most states, quite properly,nhave laws against desecration of thisnessential symbol.nThe overturning of these laws by thenfederal Supreme Court, on the plea ofnfreedom of speech, is thus a gratuitousnstrike at one of the few really bindingnelements of a large and diverse republic.nNo matter how many million-dollarnHarvard lawyers are hired to developnsophistical arguments for the Court,ntheir reasoning is puerile.nThe EDunding Fathers viewed freedomnof speech as a prerequisite ofnmajority rule, of that debate and deliberationnof the public things that wasnnecessary for consensus and decision.nWhen Patrick Henry declared, “If thisnbe treason, let us make the most of it,”nhe was not engaging in a private fantasy.nHe was speaking as the delegate ofnthe freeholders of Hanover County, innthe councils of the Burgesses of thenCommonwealth of Virginia. (Thenwords were uttered, by the way, in thenparish church of St. John’s, Diocese ofnVirginia. Listen up, separation-ofchurch-and-statenfanatics!)nThe exercise of free speech is, then,nevidence of participation in communi­nCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnty, a desire to influence deliberationnand decision. It cannot be absolute,nsince the equal right of others to speaknand the rules of deliberation must benpreserved. For the Founders, sedition,nslander, and blasphemy were not protectednby the right of free speech,nthough nearly all preferred to havenoffenses defined and punished by othernthan the central government, the restraintnof which was the purpose of thenFirst Amendment.nSuch offenses demonstrate not andesire to participate in deliberation, butna contempt for the community and itsnprocesses. Thus there is no reason whynRushdie’s infantile blasphemies have tonbe protected by the Western democraciesn(though, of course, the lawsnnnagainst murder and assault must benenforced), because such utterances arennot an exhibition of deliberation andnreason but of contempt for the processnof reason.nI am not a Moslem, nor do I particularlynwish to see Islam established innmy country. Nonetheless, for any decentnperson, gratuitous slander of thenhistoric faith of millions is a repulsivenact, even if it is someone else’s faith. Itnis something that no decent communityntolerates, though it is perhaps betternif such offenses are prevented by thencommunity rather than by the statenauthorities. This would be true even ifnwe were at war with Iran, for tondiscountenance blasphemy is a functionnof our own decency and self-nOCTOBER 1989/5n