Flag burning should be illegal.

Alright, I should probably begin my final round by rephrasing a previous point. Rephrase: "This country was created on the idea of freedom of expressions providing those expressions do not violate another's rights." Secondly I would like to bring up a quick re-evaluation of the resolution, that being: "Flag burning should be illegal." With these two things in mind I will now offer my final rebuttal. -------------------------------------------------------------------- My opponent begins her second round with the statement, "We have laws in this country that limit people from doing things that are considered, bad, harmful, unnecessary, rude, etc." and I can only find myself in full agreeance with this statement. Our country does make many things illegal this however does not offer a reason why flag burning should be illegal. If we are going to take this issue on precedent then we must see that flag burning has not been illegal up to this point. Also on this issue my opponent relates flag burning to shouting "fire" in a movie theater. While they both do involve incendiary concepts, burning a flag does not actually force an effect such as that forced by shouting "fire". Shouting fire immediately puts everyone in the theater in a feeling of their life being at risk. This in the past has lead to people being trampled in the mad scramble out of the building. Being trampled is an infringement of American rights. Flag burning on the other hand does not lead to people being trampled or rights being violated at all. More on this later. From here my opponent goes on to debunk my freedom of expression argument by equating a shooting rampage with flag burning. She would have a meritable point if both of them lead to people dieing however once again a shooting rampage is the only one of these two that actually leads directly to rights being violated. Flag burning does not cause deaths, though the newspaper article, "Man flag burned to death!", would be amusing. Next we have the issue revolving around freedom of expression being a guaranteed right or not. My opponent seems to be under the impression that it is not, and on a literal basis my opponent would probably be correct in her impression. However our country has three primary branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. These three branches were formed with checks and balances that disallow any one branch from taking all the power. One of these checks happens to be the judicial branches ability to interrupt laws set forth by the legislative branch. The judicial branch can go so far as to call laws unconstitutional thereby making them void. The judicial branch also has the ability to interrupt the constitution and has often been asked to do so. Thus the judicial branch has layed a very broad interpretation of the 1st amendment which does cover most cases of freedom of expression. "The word speech in the First Amendment has been extended to a generous sense of "expression" -- verbal, non-verbal, visual, symbolic. The artistic work supported by the NEA includes a variety of types of expression enjoying this broad protection." - http://www.csulb.edu... This is however not to say that all expression has been protected, as I stated above, acts that go against others rights are not, "Various exceptions to free speech have been recognized in American law, including obscenity, defamation, breach of the peace, incitement to crime, "fighting words," and sedition." - http://www.csulb.edu... This ties in to my next point which rebuttals the rest of my opponents flag burning argument. Flag burning is an expression which can be used to show aggravation, or dislike of current government policies, or emphasis. It however, in itself cannot be used for any of the above things. Let me give specific examples. Obscenity: A man holds up a flag and burns it over his head while not saying anything. This quite obviously does not violate obscenity in any way. Defamation: A man holds up a flag and burns it over his head while not saying anything. This does not fall under the definition of defamation in anyway as it cannot be seen as an attack on any one person. Breach of the peace: A man holds up a flag and burns it over his head while not saying anything. Once again the act in itself does not do anything, the man is making no attack on any people in order to disturb the peace. One can argue that people might attack the man but this is obviously their wrong and not his. Incitement of crime: Nope, definitely doesn't do that. If the man was yelling, "Kill the president, then sure" but up until that point it does nothing. "Fighting words": No words involved. Sedition: Being defined as an incitement of rebellion. This also does not work as the person burning the flag may not be advocating rebellion at all. My point it this. Flag burning in itself does absolutely nothing. It can be used to show that one is angry with the status quo but in itself does not violate anyones rights in anyway. My opponent says, "There's nothing wrong with criticizing your country, its leaders, or where they're taking the country; in fact, that's vital to the successful continuation of America. Burning the flag, however, does not fit anywhere into that proper dialogue." However flag burning can be used to emphasize all of these things. Thus I would label it to be a tool of emphasis. It can also be used to emphasize violent revolt, acts of sedition, or even incitements to crime, but this is not the fault of the flag burning. It is rather, the fault of the people who are burning the flag. Anything can be used to emphasize a point, this does not make them illegal. It is at the point where someone actually invades another's rights that an act is illegal. Flag burning does not have the ability to invade another's rights. Thus I have reaffirmed my 1st point. My second point that it was preferable to other types of protest. My opponent counters by saying that burning something is the ultimate form of desecration. This is simply not true, look to the fact that a common practice on someones death is to burn them. My opponent drops the fact that flag burning is preferable to parades, true arson, or crime. She however does argue civil disobedience for a little bit. So here is a great examples of civil disobedience that is not preferable to flag burning: http://images.google.com... This is of course in a different country, but still far less preferable. Thus I reaffirm my second point. My third point was economics, my opponent simply points out that not all flags are made in America. This is true, thus I simply extend my point to fueling economies of other countries also. Yay My fourth point about taking the fire from our enemies went unrefuted. My opponent simply stated that we should be more concerned with our own pride. Flag burning does not take away pride, if that was so, then all protest would be un-prideful. Finally I would like to remind the voters that we are talking about flag burning in itself here, and not the people who are burning flags. I agree that the person running through the street shooting others while burning a flag is bad. But it is the person who is shooting in the wrong and not the flag burning.