Flag Burning

I think it would be ignorant to have a legal stance against flag burning. I do think there are aspects of free speech that should not be encouraged by the government, and given their violent nature I believe authorities should be lenient on someone who kicks someone's butt for burning the flag of their nation. I believe people should have the common sense to realize that flag burning is an act of violence, and should not be surprised if it is met as such. If I was a lawyer I would probably defend someone's LEGAL right to burn a flag, but on the same token if it was my flag I would kick their butt. That is not hypocrisy, that is knowing the difference between a legal right and moral retaliation. Moral retaliation can be expected when someone is offended, though the offense may not be illegal. This is not hypocritical at all. It's the same stance as many who believe abortion should not be illegal, yet would be angered, offended, and heartbroken (some to the point of violence) if it was their baby that was aborted. Anybody with any sense knows the difference between right and wrong, but many of us believe that someone else's choice of expression of right and wrong is their own personal choice, and will not take a personal stance against that choice unless they are personally adversely affected. "So, your cool with it as long as I can keep my butt from getting kicked? If no one comes to beat the crap out of me it was fine?" -My point is that even though flag burning is not legally viewed as an act of violence one should expect for it to be viewed as an act of violence by those offended. Flag burning should be carried out with the same caution as spitting in someone's face (though spitting in someone's face is actually illegal). Though the law may not characterize this act as "assault", it may trigger the same response from those affected. "Flag burning is meant to be controversial." -Flag burning is controversial extremism, and that is my point. The act should be carried out with the expectation that one may want to retaliate at a more escalated level than the flag burner may have expected. "Radical means of symbolic speech are the only ones that can bring about change sometimes." -And crashing a plane into two very tall buildings fits into the category of "radical means of symbolic speech", but that doesn't take away from it's terrible violence and casualties. I am not saying burning a flag is akin to terrorism, but it is as radical because it can stir the same response from those affected as the images of terror can. "Extreme measures make people look and realize that it has come to that point." -If the people who are under those extreme measures feel it has become that extreme, then they should also be prepared for violent action. Flag burning is not peaceful protest, but violent instigation. "But, how can you be against flag burning when you admit you would burn and desecrate one yourself?" -I couldn't have a stance against flag burning if I didn't feel the potential violent reaction within myself and others at the thought of an offense against my own flag. I would have no need to burn a flag if I did not feel I could cause this same anger in those identified with the flag I would desire to burn or otherwise desecrate. It is because of the knowledge of this violent nature in flag burning that I am against it being socially acceptable as a peaceful form of protest and an expression of one's right to free speech. Just because I would set up a machine gun and mow down a KKK procession doesn't mean I don't believe in their right to march in the first place... is that hypocrisy? If so, then I'm a happy hypocrite. "I think that is the very definition of hypocrisy and your position makes NO SENSE." -You have stated how my position makes no sense. You even fail to prove how it is hypocritical.