Flag Burning Should Be Banned

The resolution is that the practice of burning flags in protest ought to be illegal. I shall address my opponent's position primarily before moving to establish my own line of reasoning against the resolution. My opponent's first contention (a) is arguably his weakest. The proposition that the act of burning the flag is not necessary because the same ideas can be communicated through other means discounts the fact that the concept of "freedom of speech" encompasses the medium on which you communicate. Murray Rothbard has proposed that the human right, say, to free speech is a property right; that is, the most relevant question related to free speech is "Where? " A person does not have the right to yell out his beliefs while trespassing, just as a person does not have the right to burn another person's flag[1]. Burning your own flag is an extremely poignant showing of opposition: an image that cannot be conveyed in words on a page. It is simply nonsense to suggest that, when the protestor's anti-patriotic sentiments are so strong, burning a flag is unnecessary; or that the government has the right to decide what modes of protest are unnecessary and what are not, especially when the government may be the target of that protest. Contention (b) is nothing more than a junkheap of jumbled claims. First of all, legitimate restrictions on free speech in particular contexts such as perjury and counseling to murder (there is no real law against bribery[2]) cannot be compared to the usage of flag as an instrument of protest. The goals of perjury and counseling to murder are to deceive, to undermine, and to curtail the rights of others. The burning of a flag is a form of protest that in no way conflicts with the rights of other citizens, and, as a form of protest, is not design by itself to deceive, to undermine, or to curtail the efforts of others pursuing justice. "Victimless crime" is an oxymoron: if there is no victim, there are no rights to be infringed upon. Burning the flag is a victimless crime and therefore not a crime at all[3]. Additionally, just because citizens may "express their opinions through the votes" does not mean that this means of expression is all that these citizens are entitled to. On one hand, my opponent is saying that the freedom of speech ought not to be limited; but on the other hand, saying that expressing opinion through elections of representatives is necessary and sufficient to the goals of the First Amendment. A definite contradiction may be due to either my misunderstanding or my opponent's misuse of logic. In addition, my opponent's arguments do not follow from their premises. Nowhere is there any proof of how individual freedoms contradict the democratic freedoms of individuals. Just because a state legislature has decided to prohibit flag burning, and whether or not the public has approved of these politicians for that decision, is irrelevant to the issue of whether flag burning ought to be prohibited, which is the subject of the resolution. These state legislatures could very well have voted to allow flag burning, and my opponent's arguments would be invalid. Contention (c) deals with whether this is even a matter of free speech. This is despite the obviousness that it is a matter of free speech. Firstly, we cannot honestly say that the First Amendment is based on the theories of John Stewart Mill any more than it is on the theories of Rousseau or Locke. Secondly, it is a fallacy to move from "flag burning is irrational" to "flag burning does not contribute to the exchange of ideas". Many philosophers and neuroscientists believe that emotions have a cognitive structure; that is, they are based on ideas that we have prior to expressing these emotions[4]. Thus, emotions like bitterness and resentment (perhaps of one's government) are based on confused ideas, such as rejection and rebellion. However, these are ideas nevertheless, and deserve to be marketed to the "marketplace of ideas". Indeed, if the First Amendment is indeed intended to guarantee a "marketplace of ideas" then, in my opinion, there is no better way of expressing an idea about the United States than burning its flag. Thirdly, the burning of the flag is a means of protest that expresses an idea. Burning a flag has symbolic significance, which the U. S. Supreme Court, in United States v. O'Brien in 1968, ruled that protestors have the right, under the First Amendment to engage in[5]. The case dealt with a man who burnt a draft certificate as a form of protest (or, by the court's words, "symbolic conduct"). Clearly, the national flag and a draft certificate are within the same category of physical objects: state-recognized symbols. Contention (d) deals with the worst kind of tyranny: the tyranny of ideas. Instead of seeing reality as it is, my opponent chooses to ignore the fact that a flag is nothing but a multicolored fabric. Just because to other people, past and present, this fabric may represent some sense of history, this does not justify limiting one's perception of a flag to something which must be venerated and respected. By forcing these values onto other people, my opponent expects to tell them how to use their personal property (i. e. their flags). Fortunately, in the United States, individuals are not obligated to respect the values of other individuals (even if they are obligated to respect their property). That means I could hypothetically destroy the Mona Lisa had I decided to buy it, despite others placing such a high value on its history. "Patriotic principles" do not automatically reserve respect, because they, like all principles, have to work for individuals in order to gain their respect. We cannot expect people to value patriotism unless they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the public interest. Some decide that they would rather not, and therefore do not either (a) hold the value of patriotism that highly or (b) respect those who do. It comes as nothing but a crass contradiction to the principles of the Founding Fathers, men who had a great respect for property rights, to say that our country should not allow private citizens to burn their private property, even when that private property has a cheap, mass-produced resemblance to something they carried into battles. Burning a flag, however, does not fall into the category of slander or libel because, like perjury, it is not intended to deceive its audience. It is an expression of ideas and freedoms, not a negation of others' rights and freedoms. Moreover, it is not malicious to any specific individuals. Lastly, "important societal interests" do not negate property rights of individuals; that is the definition of "inalienable" when referring to the natural right of property in the U. S. Declaration of Independence. The value of an American flag probably made in China or Mexico hardly justifies the violation of these rights. Moreover, there is no evidence given to support that the burning of an American flag, in any way, undermines "national unity". Nevertheless, my opponent is right with contention (e). I will grant him that one. My sources are in the Comments section in the interest of saving space. Q. E. D.