Vėliava - flag - drapeau and again on human rights

Straipsnyje analizuojama, kokią reikšmę turi skirtingos koncepcijos atskleidžiant konkrečios žmogaus teisės turinį. Konstatuojama, kad net „Vakarų“ demokratinėse valstybėse sprendžiant dėl žmogaus teisių turinio nuolat konkuruoja individualistinis ir traibalistinis požiūris į žmogaus teises. Esama koncepcijų dichotomija šiame straipsnyje iliustruojama žodžio laisvės turinio raidos kontekste. Straipsnyje į šios teisės turinio raidą žvelgiama per valstybės vėliavos teisinį statusą, analizuojant Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų Aukščiausiojo Teismo jurisprudencijos ir kitų šalių teisinio reguliavimo patirtį. Konstatuojama, kad anglų-amerikiečių (liberalioji) žmogaus teisių ir laisvių koncepcija, spręsdama žmogaus teisės turinio problemą, prioritetą linkusi atiduoti konkretaus asmens, o ne grupės interesui.State symbols, including the flag, represent the state and are an inseparable part of its identity. Therefore, these symbols are respected not only on the level of state institutions, not only by the public and its groups, but also by concrete persons. The recognition of the value of these symbols often has not only a long historical context, but their value is recognised also on the level of social psychology. However, the pluralistic society and individual members of a democratic state do not have to have any unified worldview or the same approach to history, its separate phenomena and symbols. Thus, while speaking about state symbols and their legal status we face a situation where the issue of competition of two values must be decided: on the one hand, freedom of speech of the person, and, on the other hand, recognition of sacredness of state symbols in legal acts. The fundamental question: does an individual of a free country, while desecrating state symbols, overstep the limits of freedom of self-expression or does it merely implement this freedom? The development of the concept of the content of freedom of speech shows that no human freedom and right is a static category. The content of the right and freedom reflects the content of the level of democracy of a concrete epoch and that of intellectual capabilities of society. The American jurisprudence needed 200 years to understand that burning of the flag in public cannot be regarded as a punishable deed, that such a deed violates neither the interests of society nor the state, but it is only a form to express one's negative position with regard to processes taking place in the state. The experience (legal regulation) of European states in this area is very varied, although it is possible to distinguish several groups. In the first group the behaviour of a person towards the flag is part of his self-expression. Therefore, in this case the state does not establish any legislative behavioural standards. The second group of states establish sanctions of administrative or criminal law for persons who violate the established procedure of behaviour with the flag. Lithuania is in the latter group of states. The essence of the paradigm of the Anglo- American (liberal) conception of human rights and freedoms is that a concrete human being is a unique value and his rights and freedoms are implemented personally. This concept of human rights and freedoms is continuously conceptually confronted by the tribalistic concept the essence of which is opposite. The essential feature of the latter conception is that in the course of disclosure of the content of the rights of a concrete person, this content is put not before the concrete person, but before a group of persons. It needs to be noted that any conception of human rights and freedoms does not deny an opportunity for a group of people to reach their objectives. However, the difference is that the Anglo-American (liberal) conception recognises that the possibility of limitation of human rights and freedoms occurs only when the latter clash with a right and freedom of other concrete individual. Thus, the content of the rights is established by comparing the rights of a person not with the rights and freedoms of a group, but those of a concrete individual. The individual may belong to any social group, but his rights are only his as an individual, but not as a member of a social group. It is this philosophy that the rulings of the US Supreme Court in the "flag" cases were grounded upon, in which, while establishing the balance of values, it was recognised that burning the flag in no way violated the rights of persons respecting the flag, as respect for the flag does not violate the rights of persons who do not respect it