Burning the Flag of the United States of America Should Be Legal.

=====Counterarguments===== "So the free speech clause of the first amendment reiterates that the federal government was granted no authority to abridge the freedom of speech. I believe most of us agree on the importance of this natural right in that it protects dissent and unpopular sentiment. " ----> So it's obvious from this statement that my opponent and I agree on what the free speech clause does for citizens. However, he denies the legalization of burning the flag because he claims it is treason. However, labeling flag burning as treason is factually incorrect. Under the US law, treason is defined as: "consist[ing] only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. "[1] So unless the person who was burning the flag was rallying people to wage war again the American government, THEN it will be treason. And even then, the flag would have nothing to do with it but rather the words spoken. The authors were concerned with defining treason because making a broad definition of it (as the British did), can allow the government to abuse it's definition and carry out actions against dissenters, etc. 1. Analogy of throwing ring This analogy, and the rest of my opponent's argument, begins to lie on very shaky grounds. This is because he assumes things to be true that are not necessarily so. I will demonstrate with his analogy: "Now imagine that instead, she pulled the engagement ring off her finger, threw it at you, chucked you the bird, and stormed out the door. You would probably feel much more concerned about the relationship. " ----> Yes, but how does this equal treason? True, someone throwing off their engagement ring at their fiancee mostly conveys a much stronger emotion (unless those two have some weirrrddddd ways of communicating). However, this at best is a form of expression - you can't arrest her for throwing her ring at you. And yes, perhaps it does mean she doesn't want to marry. But does this necessarily mean so? NO! Yet, let's go even further and say she does want a marriage either - but this is just dissent. Treason is inciting people to wage war against a government, to attack it with (obviously) forms of violence. Does the act of throwing your ring at your fiancee necessarily mean you want to beat the crap out of him when he's sleeping? NO. My opponent's analogy fails because he confuses the terms "dissent" and "treason". 2. Flag burning isn't dissent, it's treason! My opponent cites past examples of where burning the flag was done after conquering a nation, defeating it, etc. True, this may be the prevalent tradition of the past - but this does NOT mean it's so now. To say so would be to commit the genetic fallacy[2]. I can use the analogy of the ring. Originally, it symbolized a man claiming "ownership" over a woman in Rome[3]. Over time, traditions change and it's erroneous to rely on the past to say what is thought of in the future. Secondly, saying that everyone who burns the flag is saying "attack America" is a hasty and presumptuous generalization. How do we know what they truly think? And who CARES what they truly think? As long as they are not gathering people to wage war against America, or they themselves aren't committing acts of violence or espionage, then it should be perfectly legal for people to burn flags. For instance, what if I personally thought America should be invaded and conquered? Can you incriminate me for treason? No, I have to explicitly commit an act of treason such as creating websites for "the destruction of America's infrastructure". "How would one suppose we distinguished between the guy who burns the flag because he wants free health care, and the guy who wants the US to cease to exist. " ----> This is actually a point for my side. How can we tell? We can't! This is why the authors wanted the definition of treason to be specific - otherwise wish washy definitions such as torture (look at Bush) can become manipulated and abused. And as I said before, it doesn't matter what people think but what they DO. Perhaps the man who burns the flag wants the US to cease to exist - but does he show it? Does he go around rallying an guerrilla militia? If he did than THAT would be treason - not burning a flag. =====Conclusion===== All forms of expressions should be legal. The only times they can not is if they either explicitly call for treason, or expressing them would cause harms to others (you're form of expression may come at smacking people, which won't be defended). Flag burning is just a tool for expression - it is the people behind the burning who decide what the message is. ---References--- 1. . http://www.usconstitution.net... 2. . http://www.nizkor.org... 3. . http://ezinearticles.com...