Flag Burning Should Be Banned

Thanks to my opponent for the quick response. By equating the alleged obscenity of a nude body with the use of flag burning in protests, I am assuming you mean to say that flag burning, in itself is obscene. With that said, I do not like your analogy because a naked body is not obscene and, in a vast majority of cases, is not gross by any reasonable standard. I personally think that peanut butter is obscene and gross, and yet there are no laws banning the sale of peanut butter. Whenever one speaks in terms of obscenity, the premises are bound to be overly subjective, and it makes no sense to base policy on the subjective whims of individuals. Unfortunately, the subjective whims of most people are that naked bodies are obscene, and thus laws prohibit nakedness. However, this contributes nothing to the question of whether it should be illegal. In some parts of the Middle East, women are banned from showing their faces. While we condemn this in America, it is based on the same reasoning as the reasoning we use to ban nudity. The same is true of burning flags. Although a majority of people in a community erroneously thinks a human body is obscene, that is still a matter of your opinion. Offending others does not violate their rights. Once again, I dispute your claim that burning a flag is "not a very good way of communicating ideas". I think it is a supremely good way of communicating your resentment. What shows your displeasure with a country more than burning the national symbol of that institution? Certainly, there are situations in which burning the flag is most appropriate. Secondly, my opponent claims that burning a flag communicates no intelligent thought. In response, I question the relevance of this claim to the resolution. Is the purpose of the ban on flag burning designed to encourage intelligent thought, or to "encourage" us to develop more effective or intelligent means of protest? Thirdly, my opponent claims that a flag is not "morally" (perhaps "symbolically" is a better word?) yours, and therefore burning one is "vandalism". First, there is the problem of what object is ontologically an American flag. For instance, I could take a piece of paper and draw an American flag on it. Am I allowed to burn this piece of paper? What about if I erase one of the stars? Am I allowed to burn it then? There is also the absurdity of collective, "symbolic" ownership of one's private property. My opponent claims that even though I buy an American flag made in China at Wal-Mart, the collective actually owns that flag. My property rights on this cloth aside, they have the right to decide how I use this piece of property. Interesting... Look at this reasoning in terms of professional sports. Apparently, the Pittsburgh Steelers are the most popular team in all professional sports. Nevertheless, it is legal for me to purchase a Troy Polamalu jersey (#43), go into my yard, and burn it in effigy. What is the difference between burning a flag and burning a jersey? Certainly, the Steelers have many fans, and doing this would upset almost all of them. Once again, it is a matter of subjectivity. Burning the jersey is obscene to some, and not obscene to others: not because the jersey has some intrinsic moral value, but because people like the Steelers. Most Americans like the United States; some others (like me) do not. In addition, it is actually laughable how my opponent has put "yours" in quotation marks while talking about personal property. Fourthly, thanks to my opponent for acknowledging my lack of belief in God (although I would not choose the Constitution either because I am a libertarian-anarchist; so let's just say... Metaphysics by Aristotle). I recognize the value of Aristotle's Metaphysics in the history of philosophy. I have a Collected Works, two volumes, of Aristotle on my bookshelf right now. What keeps me from burning the book? Besides the fact I know that I will need it for reference at some point in the future, it is that I respect Aristotle's words and his ideas. However, not all people like Aristotle, such as contemporary Islamists in the Middle East because he is an infidel philosopher. These people burn Aristotle's Metaphysics despite the impact his ideas had on Islamic civilization. I find it unfortunate. But this book does not belong to Western civilization, as you claim the flag belongs to the people who value what the flag represents. As long as those who burn the book own the book (which is frequently not the case in book burnings by religious fanatics), I see nothing wrong with casting it to the fire. In fact, David Hume told us to cast metaphysics into the fire, but that is beside the point. Lastly, I thank my opponent for reminding me that I have not yet made my case yet. While my case primarily consists of the fact that my opponent (the instigator) doesn't have one, my argument against the resolution is based in the irony of celebrating our freedoms (what the flag represents) by passing more laws that restrict our freedoms (burning the flag). Not only is banning the act of burning flags in protest a grievous violation of the First Amendment, which protects all speech and acts, even if some might consider them obscene, but also shows a disrespect (as my opponent has shown) for individual property rights. Considering that the United States was founded on the principle of an inalienable right to property, it seems, at best, hypocritical and at worst, disingenuous to think that burning your personal property is not a right. I agree that the flag has symbolic significance to some people. However, this significance can range from extreme patriotism to extreme hate. While a redneck veteran in Mississippi might venerate the flag, a coffee-drinking liberal in Massachusetts might despise the flag as a symbol for imperialism, capitalism, and exploitation. Is it then wrong for this person to buy a flag and burn it to express his angers with the government? It seems the redneck and the liberal, if they both own their flags, have as much right as the other to do with it what they wish. But the symbolism of fire is also significant. Societies past and present decline and fall. Their cities might be burned down and governments changed. Fire represents destruction in the present moment, but it also represents regrowth after the destruction: that is, the possibility of a better future. A flag may be more than cloth and dye (to some people), but that in itself does not give these people the right to tell another what to do with an object that is rightfully his own. Q.E.D.