Flag burning debate

A country that prohibits flag burning, is not a country worthy of having its flag defended.

There’s nothing special about authoritarian hell holes filled with petty laws that prohibit dissent. Places like that are a dime a dozen, and few shed a tear when they either collapse or are toppled.

The flag is a symbol. Nothing more and nothing less. It also means different things to different people.

People are allowed to revere the flag. They should be allowed to revile it as well. When only one viewpoint is allowed that is not free speech. You are not for free speech unless you are willing to defend the free speech rights of even people you violently disagree with.

Those who feel the symbol of our country is more important than our freedoms do more to desecrate our flag than any malcontents.

Ask them if they can think of an example of any flag in history representing any form of government that they would destroy as a symbolic way of registering distress with the government if flies over.

You can follow up with examples of flags for governments you may find reprehensible and ask if they would consider these fit for destruction if they fail to give examples.

Yes, but the US, despite what its citizens believe, isn’t the centre of the world, therefore the first amendment doesn’t apply to them. I think there’s nothing wrong with flag burning, believing you are superior because of the political boundaries you happened to be born in, is silly.

I’m sorry, I simply can’t think of any good reasons to burn a flag…well, maybe for heat if you were about to freeze to death…

The simple answer is flag burning is a form of free speach protected by the first amendment.