There's nothing new in the idea that symbols represent ideas, since we've been on top of that game since Plato. The words on this page, f'rinstance, are symbols that you recognize as language, and as such they're completely abritrary. But we load up symbols with meaning, and sooner or later some histrionic yahoo comes along, decides that the implied meaning in a particular symbol is distasteful, and then sets about eradicating the symbol in the hapless hope that its embedded meaning will be destroyed along with it.

We see this idea in action from time to time when misguided bands of the ignorati move to eradicate or politicize dictionary entires. Imagine that someone took offense with the idea of SPQR, which stands for "Senatus Populusque Romanus" (the Senate and the people of Rome). The thinking appears to be that if "SPQR" as a symbol were expunged from the collective lexicon, that Rome itself would then atrophy and crumble into dust. Instead, however, the cause-and-effect relationship is correctly seen to be the other way around.

This is such an obvious truth that it boggles the mind when people seem hell-bent on ignoring it.

It's even more bizarre when the people in question are the Supreme Court, who've ruled that the government can ban the burning of crosses. Not that this is putting a damper on my weekend plans or anything, but what this means is that the nation's highest court has come to the conclusion that symbolic acts can be lawfully prohibited.

If you accept the reasoning that symbols follow thought, then you agree that symbols represent ideas. Freedom of speech is really about the freedom of ideas and our right to share them with others. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor appears to understand this:

But O'Connor said Virginia's law went too far when it also said all cross burning can be presumed to be intimidation. Such a presumption "would create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas," she wrote, and could prohibit cross burning at rallies or when used as political protest.

Another example of concept-symbol confusion came up in Beaufort, South Carolina, where 35 high school students were suspended for wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the Confederate flag.

I know full well that this is a contentious issue. In fact, when I examined a similar case last year, one ardently conformist Salon blogger immediated de-blogrolled me on the mistaken assumption that I must be some kind of red-necked rabblerouser standing up for some lame-brained idea about "Southern Heritage." Which goes to show you how seriously some people get worked up over symbols.

So let's consider this gal's bikini for a moment. The law is clearly moving toward a stance where she would be liable for a fine, arrest, and possibly imprisonment for displaying this combination of colors and design. But just as with the cross-burning issue, symbol follows concept and since symbols are arbitrary, quashing one only leads to another taking its place.

The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last month that a school could prohibit students from displaying the Confederate flag on school grounds.

It noted that words like "symbol," "heritage," "racism," and "slavery," are highly charged and often associated with discussions of the flag. "Real feelings—strong feelings—are involved," the court wrote. "It is not only constitutionally allowable for school officials to closely contour the range of expression children are permitted regarding such volatile issues, it is their duty to do so."

12:12:57 PM