By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge has expanded an order blocking the Trump administration from revoking permits for protesters displaying “8647” flags and signs near the National Mall. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss extended a temporary restraining order and ruled that variations of the “8647” flag, which now include phrases like “IMPEACH TRUMP,” are not reasonably construed as calls for violence. Instead, the judge found these displays advocate for President Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, reinforcing his prior conclusion that the administration cannot credibly claim the flags threaten the President’s life given the protesters’ repeated disavowals of violence. The court emphasized that context is crucial, and these new displays, like the original flag, constitute core political speech.
Read the original article here
A recent judicial decision has clarified that those displaying the “8647” flags are not to be subjected to any further disturbances, especially in light of the Trump Department of Justice’s failure to present any opposing arguments. This ruling essentially solidifies protections for individuals using this particular form of expression, underscoring the judge’s stance that these flags, and similar variations, are not to be misconstrued as incitements to violence. Instead, the court views them as representations of advocacy for President Trump’s impeachment and removal from office.
This judicial clarity comes after a period where the interpretation and enforcement surrounding such symbols had become a point of contention. The understanding of “86” as a culinary term, meaning an item is no longer available, was brought up as an analogy to explain the flag’s meaning. This context suggests that, much like a restaurant quickly communicating that a dish is unavailable, the “8647” flag signifies a desire for a political figure’s removal from their position, rather than any direct call for harm. It’s a way to communicate a sentiment quickly and unequivocally.
The fact that the Trump DOJ did not file an opposition is significant. It suggests a tacit acceptance or perhaps an inability to mount a successful legal challenge against the interpretation that these flags are protected speech. This inaction from the Justice Department essentially leaves the judge’s ruling standing unchallenged in this specific instance, reinforcing the idea that the “8647” flag-flyers are to be left undisturbed.
There’s a sentiment that this inaction is not entirely surprising, given past actions. Some recall a time when the Justice Department suggested federal agencies could disregard judicial rulings. This history fuels a skepticism about the long-term implications, with some believing that real damage can still be done, even if technically illegal, and that meaningful change will only occur when the courts demonstrate stronger enforcement. The hope is that such a stance will eventually lead to a more consistent application of protections.
The ruling, however, raises questions about the scope of protection. While the judge’s initial order addressed specific “8647” flags, the clarification extends to “other variations.” This suggests a broader understanding of the expressive intent behind these symbols, moving beyond literal interpretations to acknowledge the underlying political messaging. It’s about recognizing that the intent is political dissent, not violent insurrection.
The disconnect between how certain symbols are perceived and treated is a recurring theme in these discussions. The comparison is drawn between the “8647” flags and other potentially more graphic depictions, such as an image of a hanging Obama or a hog-tied Biden. The argument is that if these overtly threatening images are not always seen as calls for violence, then a symbolic representation like “8647” should also be afforded protection as political speech.
There’s a distinct frustration expressed regarding instances where local law enforcement is perceived to be arbitrarily removing anti-Trump paraphernalia and arresting individuals for minor infractions, simply for displaying symbols like “8647” on their property or vehicles. This highlights a perceived double standard, where the protected status of some speech is allegedly ignored in practice by those on the ground. The ability to challenge such actions is often seen as prohibitively expensive, leaving many without recourse.
The debate often circles back to the principle of freedom of speech, and how it seems to be selectively applied. The observation is that support for free speech often wavers when the expression is directed at a particular political figure, especially one favored by the speaker. This hypocrisy is seen as a defining characteristic for some, where the First Amendment is championed when it aligns with their views but dismissed when it doesn’t.
The explanation of “86” as a common restaurant term, signifying unavailability, is crucial for understanding the nuance. It’s a term used in fast-paced environments to convey information quickly and efficiently. The analogy suggests that “8647” functions similarly in the political arena, communicating a strong message about dissatisfaction and a desire for change. This explanation is seen as so straightforward that it’s surprising it needs to be stated.
The idea that four numbers could be more dangerous than overt threats is a point of contention. Some argue that while overt threats are direct, symbolic language can rally emotions and intentions more subtly but effectively. The power of seeing “8647” on a bar’s mirror or on multiple flags along a street is seen as something that can call people to action, albeit in a less immediate way than a violent effigy. It’s about the cumulative effect of a symbol.
The legal precedent established by this ruling is also a point of discussion, with some wryly noting its potential application in future cases. The irony of the situation, where symbols are being interpreted differently based on the political leanings of the subject, is not lost on many observers. The consistent application of legal principles, regardless of the political figures involved, is what many are advocating for.
Ultimately, the judge’s clear directive that “8647” flag-flyers are not to be disturbed, especially after the Trump DOJ’s lack of opposition, serves as a significant moment in the ongoing dialogue about free speech and political expression. It reinforces the idea that symbolic speech, even when conveying strong dissent, is entitled to protection, and that the courts are playing a vital role in delineating these boundaries.