But it is illegal to have an open flame in public.  So 1 could burn the flag at a protest, but get arrested for starting a fire.  Compared to them burning it on private property.

Either way, flag sales are up, so it's all G.

Flag burning is free expression. Take that away and all the people who fought for that flag died for nothing, except to make some rich guys richer.

I have a different perspective. 

What if I burned a Koran, a Christian Bible, or a Gay Pride flag?  What if I burned a mannequin that was made to look like Pelosi, AOC or Kamala Harris? 

Do you really think the Dems would be supporting my 1A rights?  Or would they be looking to get me on some vague terroristic threatening, hate crime or other statute?

I have a different perspective. 

What if I burned a Koran, a Christian Bible, or a Gay Pride flag?  What if I burned a mannequin that was made to look like Pelosi, AOC or Kamala Harris? 

Do you really think the Dems would be supporting my 1A rights?  Or would they be looking to get me on some vague terroristic threatening, hate crime or other statute?

"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."
Lavrentiy Beria
Beria was a good Democrat socialist.
I suspect most American Democrat leaning
Prosecutors, Media,  and politicians have
that one memorized.

Rights exist regardless of what someone puts on paper.  That's the definition of "God-given rights".

Your personal opinion on flag burning is YOUR right to voice (1st amendment).  My opinion is that flag burning goes beyond the 1st Amendment and crosses over into inciting or provoking others which is one of the underlying factors in breaching the peace.

Sounds like the same thing liberals say when they want to justify restricting "hate speech". It is "too dangerous" to say because it could incite violence. And no I am not trying to call you a liberal nor am I using the term liberal as a pejorative, I am pointing out only that you are using the same line of reasoning that would justify restricting hate speech. I don't know if you support restricting hate speech or not, but just pointing that out.

But it is illegal to have an open flame in public.  So 1 could burn the flag at a protest, but get arrested for starting a fire.  Compared to them burning it on private property.

Either way, flag sales are up, so it's all G.

The the flag has nothing to do with it, it is just a violation of an open flame law and it doesn't matter what they burn, but that isn't what Trump suggested. If you target the flag then you are being selective about which messages can be made and that is why it is unconstitutional. If you target the flame and apply it to whatever is burning then it would be constitutional. Of course desecration of a flag goes beyond just burning, covers leaving it on the ground, and all manner of other things that could be done to it.

I hope that the flags are made in America at least 

I have a different perspective. 

What if I burned a Koran, a Christian Bible, or a Gay Pride flag?  What if I burned a mannequin that was made to look like Pelosi, AOC or Kamala Harris? 

Do you really think the Dems would be supporting my 1A rights?  Or would they be looking to get me on some vague terroristic threatening, hate crime or other statute?

Pretty sure lots of dems would not try to stop you from burning any of those. Some might label it hate speech of course but there are democrats who haven't tossed the 1st amendment out the window. Believe it or not even the ACLU would probably protect you.

Sounds like the same thing liberals say when they want to justify restricting "hate speech". It is "too dangerous" to say because it could incite violence. And no I am not trying to call you a liberal nor am I using the term liberal as a pejorative, I am pointing out only that you are using the same line of reasoning that would justify restricting hate speech. I don't know if you support restricting hate speech or not, but just pointing that out.

I reject your  feeble attempt at "what-about-ism".

If the intention of the flag burner is to express their hatred of the nation, then why is it not hate speech?

If the laws could manage a little consistency, these issues would never be a problem.

Hate speech, in reality, doesn't exist.  The creation of hate crimes was an attempt to make certain groups more protected than all the others.  Yet, when the same circumstances exist for a non-protected person (not a member of a protected class), then the same laws do not apply.  So, no, I do not support hate crime/hate speech laws.

This is totally different.  ANY speech, labeled as "hate or not" that is intended to incite and provoke others should be viewed as an attempt to disrupt the peace, particularly if it's on public property.

Burning a flag does not state an argument for or against an issue.  It's meant to get attention pure and simple, and it should not be protected as "speech".

Flag burnings serve no real purpose, and any ban would not diminish anyone's ability or right to express their political views.

Pretty sure lots of dems would not try to stop you from burning any of those. Some might label it hate speech of course but there are democrats who haven't tossed the 1st amendment out the window. Believe it or not even the ACLU would probably protect you.

 

The A C L WHO? 

Where have they been the last 4 years?  12 years?  All these "Constitutional Crises" going on, and they are nowhere to be found.

I couldn't give half a fart if the ACLU supported my views or not.  That you do says alot.

The A C L WHO? 

Where have they been the last 4 years?  12 years?  All these "Constitutional Crises" going on, and they are nowhere to be found.

Yeah yeah, they have consistently failed to get involved to protect our 2nd amendment rights but they have a fairly strong record of supporting 1st amendment rights time and time again on both sides of the aisle. They caught huge flack when they defended a white supremacist group's right to protest. Pretty sure you burning the Quran would be an easy one for them.

I couldn't give half a fart if the ACLU supported my views or not.  That you do says alot.

The issue was whether they would, not whether you cared. Focus.

I reject your  feeble attempt at "what-about-ism".

If the intention of the flag burner is to express their hatred of the nation, then why is it not hate speech?

If the laws could manage a little consistency, these issues would never be a problem.

Hate speech, in reality, doesn't exist.  The creation of hate crimes was an attempt to make certain groups more protected than all the others.  Yet, when the same circumstances exist for a non-protected person (not a member of a protected class), then the same laws do not apply.  So, no, I do not support hate crime/hate speech laws.

This is totally different.  ANY speech, labeled as "hate or not" that is intended to incite and provoke others should be viewed as an attempt to disrupt the peace, particularly if it's on public property.

Burning a flag does not state an argument for or against an issue.  It's meant to get attention pure and simple, and it should not be protected as "speech".

Flag burnings serve no real purpose, and any ban would not diminish anyone's ability or right to express their political views.

It isn't whatboutism, it is seeing if you are honest and logically consistent. If hate speech doesn't exist and can't be regulated because of the 1st amendment then neither can flag burning. Otherwise you are just picking and choosing, selectively enforcing when you want rights to apply. You can't outlaw flag burning because it might cause strife while at the same time allow other speech which would cause similar strife.

How do you know that flag burning isn't a message? Can you read minds? It's not for you to allow or disallow forms of protest based on what you think their intent is or whether you think their form of message is valid or not.

Face it, all the arguments you are making in favor of making it illegal to burn a flag are arguments the leftists use to try and limit "hate speech".

I think the spirit of the 1st amendment is to allow speech to facilitate discussion and debate.
Hate speech is subjective and written into law by those that were in power.
The architects of this country assuned that we would be ladies and gentlemen about how we conduct ourselves. That certainly went out the window. We got people who just are assholes with no social responsibility and title themselves as people "who push boundaries".
Flag burning like "hate speech" is an act akin to a child throwing a tantrum.
Some people will do desicable things and hide under the letter of the law.

The Constitution's Bill of Rights protects PEACEFUL protests.

I see nothing peaceful about burning a US Flag in public.  You can't debate the underlying issues for the burning when it's obvious the person hates the country and are promoting hatred in others, too.

Burning a flag is about as peaceful as burning a cross.

The Constitution's Bill of Rights protects PEACEFUL protests.

I see nothing peaceful about burning a US Flag in public.  You can't debate the underlying issues for the burning when it's obvious the person hates the country and are promoting hatred in others, too.

Burning a flag is about as peaceful as burning a cross.

So take flame out of it. People just walking on the flag or tearing it up, that's fine then?

I think the spirit of the 1st amendment is to allow speech to facilitate discussion and debate.
Hate speech is subjective and written into law by those that were in power.
The architects of this country assuned that we would be ladies and gentlemen about how we conduct ourselves. That certainly went out the window. We got people who just are assholes with no social responsibility and title themselves as people "who push boundaries".
Flag burning like "hate speech" is an act akin to a child throwing a tantrum.
Some people will do desicable things and hide under the letter of the law.

A very good assessment.

So take flame out of it. People just walking on the flag or tearing it up, that's fine then?

If your alternatives to burning the flag offer the same demonstration of one's opinions, why NOT ban burning?

The amendment would ban FLAG BURNING, so you should support it.  Alternatives = no infringement of the 1st amendment.

If your alternatives to burning the flag offer the same demonstration of one's opinions, why NOT ban burning?

The amendment would ban FLAG BURNING, so you should support it.  Alternatives = no infringement of the 1st amendment.

I am pointing out the fallacy where people try to ban flag burning because burning is dangerous. If risk was really their concern then they would be perfectly fine with other non-dangerous forms of desecration.

I am pointing out the fallacy where people try to ban flag burning because burning is dangerous. If risk was really their concern then they would be perfectly fine with other non-dangerous forms of desecration.

A tub of acid? Liquid nitrogen and a hammer? Fry it up in a wok and serve it to a dog, then eat the dog?

I am pointing out the fallacy where people try to ban flag burning because burning is dangerous. If risk was really their concern then they would be perfectly fine with other non-dangerous forms of desecration.

The symbolism of burning anything mimics destruction of whatever the thing represents and creates more provocative reactions than a simpler demonstration, such as wiping one's shoes in it ir cutting it.

You still avoided my question -- as usual.  Why NOT ban flag burning if the majority of states vote to amend the Constitution?  Do you hate the government so much that you can't agree with the Constitutional process of amending it?

I consider burning the American flag an act of Treason. 

I consider burning the American flag an act of Treason. 

=============
Well, I wouldn't say treason.
But seriously, flag burning is just the ranting of a spoiled-child-drama-queer. It's a tantrum....nothing more.
If the a-hole is so displeased with their country, there is nothing to stop them from from leaving.
If the burner really wants change, then he/she should work towards change. ie. put up or shut up.