That he was or was not once a soldier is completely irrelevant. Soldiers are not "special" before the law. They are not more, or less, entitled. They have the same first amendment rights as everybody else, and the right to make a political statement by hanging the flag upside down under the Chinese flag - could there be a more obvious and direct political statement than that? What he means is obvious - is pretty much absolute.

Iowa or that locality have some laws, and local officials have enforced them. The United States has a law of political speech that is superior to, and more important than, those local laws and local sensitivities. If this man fights this in court, he will most certainly eventually win at the federal level. It's a no-brainer.

The Republican Right should take on this case, but they won't, so it is to be hoped that the ACLU will step up to the plate here.

Iowa or that locality have some laws, and local officials have enforced them.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has twice invalidated state flag laws, 47 states still have on the books laws, many modeled after the Uniform Flag Law of 1917, that prohibit the desecration of the flag or its use for advertising and publicity purposes.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court has twice invalidated state flag laws, 47 states still have on the books laws, many modeled after the Uniform Flag Law of 1917, that prohibit the desecration of the flag or its use for advertising and publicity purposes.

That's fine. In this case, the flag is not being descrated. It's being used to make clear political speech, and that is protected by the First Amendment. If the man in the case goes to court, he will certainly win.

When I saw that, I contacted the WH and told them they are in violation of the flag laws pertaining to flying such flags like that.

You're lucky you weren't on the receiving end of a no-knock SWAT raid.

Doesn't matter in the long run - pretty sure you and I both are on Obama's list of dissenters to be terminated, most likely when Hillary takes control.

This list isn’t actually anything new, as it was leaked during the Bush administration. Of course liberals persecuted Bush for keeping such a list insisting that Democrats would never think of American’s in such a way. As it turns out this isn’t entirely true.

Not only is Obama keeping the list and has updated it since he was elected into office, it has been around since the 1980’s. That’s right, this list is a bi-partisan effort to violate the rights of American’s in a preemptive way on the basis that they are a threat to the government.

Anybody flying a chinese communist flag in the WH is a traitor and the sworn enemy. If I see somebody flying such a flag like this in the WH, I will not hesitate to call them on this one. I have lived with real Red Beijing Communist and they are not nice people. They hate Americans. I would sit in American classrooms where I'd hear teachers tell students they had no rights to keep and bear arms and shit like that. Then, later I would discover this teacher was traveling over to Russia (probably getting his orders from the Russian intelligence) and back to the U.S. and still working "hot" as a teacher.

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974)

Syllabus

For displaying out of his apartment window a United States flag upside down with a peace symbol taped thereto, appellant was convicted under Washington's "improper use" statute forbidding the exhibition of a United States flag to which is attached or superimposed figures, symbols, or other extraneous material. He testified without contradiction at his trial that he thus displayed his flag as a protest against then-recent actions in Cambodia and fatal events at Kent State University, and that his purpose was to associate the American flag with peace instead of war and violence. The Washington Supreme Court sustained the conviction, rejecting appellant's contention, inter alia, that the improper use statute, on its face and as applied, contravened the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Held: The statute, as applied to appellant's activity, impermissibly infringed a form of protected expression.

81 Wash.2d 788, 506 P.2d 293, reversed.

Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576 (1969)

Syllabus

Appellant, having heard a news broadcast of the shooting of James Meredith, a civil rights leader, took an American flag which he owned to a street corner near his home in New York and ignited the flag. He was arrested and thereafter charged by information with malicious mischief for violating § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, of the New York Penal Law, which makes it a crime publicly to mutilate or "publicly [to] defy . . . or cast contempt upon [any American flag] either by words or act." The information charged appellant with burning the American flag and publicly speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the flag. Appellant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the statute violated his constitutional right to free expression by punishing him for activity which he contended was a constitutionally protected "demonstration" or "protest." Appellant was tried before a judge without a jury and convicted. The arresting officer testified that, at the time of arrest, appellant was standing on a corner speaking to a small and not unruly group, which did not block the street or sidewalk; on the opposite corner was the burning flag; appellant told the group: "We don't need no damn flag," and said to the officer, "If they let that happen to Meredith, we don't need an American flag." Appellant also challenged the constitutionality of the "words" part of the statute in the Appellate Term and in the New York Court of Appeals, both of which affirmed his conviction, the latter court upholding the constitutionality of the statute without alluding to the "words" part.

Held:

1. Appellant has met the burden of showing that the federal question of constitutionality of the "words" part of the statute was adequately raised in the state courts, by appellant's motion to dismiss in the trial court and his briefs in the appellate courts. Pp. 394 U. S. 581-585.

2. The application of § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, to appellant was violative of rights of free expression assured against state infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment, because it permitted him to be punished merely for speaking defiant or contemptuous words about the American flag. Pp. 394 U. S. 581, 394 U. S. 585-594.

(a) Appellant's conviction must be set aside if it could have been based solely upon his words, or upon both his words and his act, and if a conviction on such a basis would be unconstitutional. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (131); Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516 (1945). Pp. 394 U. S. 585-588.

(b) The record here is insufficient to eliminate the possibility that appellant's words were the sole basis of his conviction or that he was convicted for both his words and his deed. Pp. 394 U. S. 588-590.

(c) Appellant's conviction under § 1425, subd. 16, par. d, for speaking as he did could not be constitutionally justified on the basis that the words he uttered (1) constituted incitement to others to commit unlawful acts; (2) were so inflammatory as to provoke violent retaliation by others; (3) were (apart from the content of the ideas they conveyed) likely to shock passers-by; or (4), in the light of Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), constituted failure by the appellant to manifest the respect which every citizen must show the flag. Pp. 394 U. S. 590-593.

20 N.Y.2d 231, 229 N.E.2d 17, reversed and remanded.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Syllabus

During the 1984 Republican National Convention, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.

Held: Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-420.

Anybody flying a chinese communist flag in the WH is a traitor and the sworn enemy.

It is standard protocol when there is a visiting head of state.

If Hillary wins, you can add 2016 to that, and it'll be a different result.

It is one thing to recognize another head of state with regards to trading partners but the US flag is never to be flown in unison with another nations flag. The US flag is to stand higher than the other nations flag.

Really? What's your source? Here's mine, supplemented by experience.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-4/chapter-1/sec.-7/

2014 US Code
Title 4 - Flag and Seal, Seat of Government, and the States (Sections 1 - 146)
Chapter 1 - The Flag (Sections 1 - 10)
Sec. 7 - Position and manner of display

4 U.S.C. § 7 (2014)
§7. Position and manner of display

4 U.S.C. § 7(g)

(g) When flags of two or more nations are displayed, they are to be flown from separate staffs of the same height. The flags should be of approximately equal size. International usage forbids the display of the flag of one nation above that of another nation in time of peace.