Respecting an establishment of religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and petition the government of a redress of grievances. Not that the first amendment matters anymore, everybody is too busy waving their guns around exercising the second thanks to the fact the are too inarticulate to understand the true genius that is the first.
I do not understand why the people at congress wish to allow this to be legal. The American flag is a symbol of our nation, and if you wish for our nation to burn that should be seen as hateful and should not be allowed. If you want to burn an American flag go live in North Korea, but do not try do tarnish our nations symbol by the act of burning our flag.
Flag burning is an extreme sign of disrespect for whatever countries flag is being burned. This is not a freedom of speech, but should be considered a hate crime and those who participate in flag burning should be arrested or charged. This should not be considered an element of speech at all.
In my opinion, burning the American Flag does qualify as freedom of speech; however, it is disrespectful to our Nation. The act of burning the flag shows the extremity that our citizens our willing to take to make his or her point, but I do think that there should be a prohibition of flag burning. There should be strict restrictions and punishments to anyone found guilty. In my government class we are learning about freedom of speech, and from what I have learned, I believe that burning the American flag defames the Nation’s name; therefore, it is an imminent lawless action. By burning the American flag, it does pose a threat of security to the State because if the government does not take control they are willing to let acts of disgrace and violence control the people. Not only have thousands of people risked their lives to fight for our country, but also people who burn the flag are disrespecting them. To me, by burning the American flag, people are saying that they do not appreciate or are grateful that someone else voluntarily agreed to protect his or her life.
We cannot exclude human activity from the scope of guaranteed free expression on the basis of the content or meaning being conveyed. Indeed, if the activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning, it has expressive content and prima facie falls within the scope of the guarantee. Of course, while most human activity combines expressive and physical elements, some human activity is purely physical and does not convey or attempt to convey meaning. It might be difficult to characterize certain day-to-day tasks, like parking a car, as having expressive content. To bring such activity within the protected sphere, one would have to show that it was performed to convey a meaning. For example, an unmarried person might, as part of a public protest, park in a zone reserved for spouses of government employees in order to express dissatisfaction or outrage at the chosen method of allocating a limited resource. If that person could demonstrate that his activity did in fact have expressive content, he would, at this stage, be within the protected sphere.
The flag is a physical representation of an idea that can't be burned or destroyed, something that can't be expressed with words. It is a symbol of speech, and therefore should be considered speech. Burning a flag does not take away the meaning of the flag or the ideas and principles meant to be conveyed by the symbol.