Resolved: US legislation banning flag burning is unjust.

My greetings to my opponent.I stand to defend the justness of US laws banning flag burning, should any be enacted. Such actions are presently permitted, although regulated by arson and public burning ordinances. I argue that it would not be unjust to ban flag-burning as a sign of protest; I will not be arguing against the ritual and respectful disposal of old flags by fire, as is prescribed, nor will I be arguing about any flag other than the US flag. Burning of Nazi or rainbow flags, or any other such tangent, is irrelevant to this debate.My opponent may only have one contention to support his case, but it has two major flaws. One, it conflates "just" with "constitutional."Two, it attempts to make the jump from "free speech is a right" to "free expression of emotion is a right."This does not necessarily follow in all cases.Before we get off on any tangents, here, I do not contest the right to free speech. Repression of thought is unjust, by virtually any standard of justice. Sub point A of my opponent's case is correct up until the last sentence, where he (and the UN) lump together speech and all other forms of expression. Even if I were to concede, which I do not, that all forms of expression are equivalent to speech for the purposes of natural rights, this alone would render my opponent's case invalid. Harmful forms of speech are wrong, and it is not unjust to ban them; other forms of expression can be much more harmful than words ever can, and it is very obvious that not all forms of expression are protected.I may express my emotions in many ways: by smiling at a child, or by shooting up a school; by waving signs in a peaceful demonstration, or by throwing bricks at the counter-strikers; by writing a firm but polite letter to my congressman, or by selling nuclear secrets to our enemies. All of these have been done, obviously; these people had emotions they expressed, and - by my opponent's logic - they were all within their rights.My opponent's logic lacks an important limitation that happens to be fatal to his case: no-one has the right to expression that harms others.Libel is an example of speech which is not unjust to ban, because it is damaging to others. Obviously, even though we have the right to freedom of speech, that right is not entirely unlimited; we must not harm others with our speech. Slander and libel are crimes for a reason, and I will argue that here if I must; but for now I am going to appeal to 1700 years of Common Law precedent that establishes the right of citizens to not have damaging lies told about them.Flag burning is harmful the the United States in the same way that burning the President in effigy would be, or spreading pamphlets promoting the overthrow of the government. Actual physical harm is absent, but the malice is present, the loss of face for the country is present, the slander of this country's name is present, and the intent to do this country harm is clearly demonstrated. The means of expression may be too small to actually damage country in a measurable way; an analogous situation would be assault, rather than assault and battery. The threat was there, and the intent was there; the inability of the defendant to carry out his malice does not prevent it from being actionable.By burning a flag, someone advertises how terrible of a country they think the US is; they broadcast their disdain for the national symbol and all it stands for; and they align themselves with our enemies, who share their feelings. Nations have every right to put down attempts at revolution; you can go on all day long about how much you dislike the place, but once you call for the overthrow of the government by unlawful means, you've overstepped your rights as a citizen. Justice is not necessarily equivalent with constitutionality. Until the fourteenth amendment, women and blacks were denied equal rights under the constitution; rights they were entitled to as humans but not granted by law. Although I doubt we could agree on an example, it is entirely possible for the Constitution to be amended in a way that gives "rights" to entities who are not humanly entitled to them; perhaps a safe example would be if voting rights were extended to animals and inanimate objects. It could be constitutional, if certain drastic amendments were enacted; but it would not be just.This removes on of the main premises of my opponent's argument. Freedom of speech is indeed a Constitutional right, and current court law defines flag burning as a form of protected "speech"; slavery was also protected under the constitution once, and then-current court law defined slaves as property. Just because it is constitutional does not make it just; and we argue the justice of these laws, not their constitutionality.It is very late. Christmas came, and it was good; but I return to this debate to find six hours remaining at midnight. This round looks roughly as I intended it, less the amazing and uber-convincing sources I am too tired to look up right now; when my opponent attacks my examples, I will pull up the relevant court cases next round. For now, though, this is my main line of attack.I return this debate to my opponent, with my thanks. -C.