Contender's choice.

I feel that we are both once again beating a dead horse, however I feel obliged to make brief responses and a final statement. "But like I said before, if you feel so negatively about your country as to burn its flag, what does that imply you want to do to the country as a whole?... Besides, burning stuff in public is usually bad." It can imply a variety of things, from wanting to seclude oneself from public life, to wanting to become politically active. All it almost always means is that the burner is highly dis-satisfied. Who said a flag would be publicly burned? "Definition 2, violating allegiance. "I pledge allegiance to the flag..." How can you say the pledge to the flag if you just burned it?" That is the most discretionary argument I've ever experienced. The pledge of allegiance is a patriotic poem recited by some at their leisure, others choose not to, schoolchildren are often encouraged to, but no one is forced to, and it is in no way legally binding. Not to mention its my bet that the people who would feel the need to burn the flag wouldn't be those who say the Pledge. But that's a different topic for a different time. "So you say the government demands to citizens to obey the law. Would that not make one a faithful citizen? So the government can be confident that you will be a faithful citizen, provided you obey the laws." You implicitly defined 'faithful' to mean more than not breaking laws, but rather being like a cute dog that fetches the paper and does tricks on command. That is something the government does not expect from someone. "Yes, real freedom means you can do ANYTHING. But of course, some restrictions must be made to create an orderly society. Is flag burning orderly? I wouldn't consider it so." Well it really comes down to how orderly my opponent wishes to make society. If he wishes for a perfectly orderly society, I'd point him to Germany from from 1933-1945. They tried running a modern country like that, I think we can see how that worked. Flag burning is disorderly, yes, but the fact is, people have the right to create a certain degree of reasonable disorder. Burning a flag, which hurts no body, and destroys no one else's private property, is a reasonable creation of disorder for political purposes. "No, I am saying that in this case, flag burning will not bring any oppression to the limelight. The key word is "sometimes"." Just because you don't see something, doesn't mean its not there. Perception (of no oppression) is not always (the potentially oppressed) reality. That's it? Intent to kill? That's lame. well after some research, intent to kill isn't a crime. Although I'm sure they could get you with something, like harassment. "Okay, but burning the flag isn't safe or orderly, and is also quite ridiculous." Burning a flag is like burning a very large piece of paper. I don't see where the lack of saftey comes in, as long as the person burning the flag has some common sense. What if someone DID get hurt, or there is the possibility of someone getting hurt? If it is a potential threat shouldn't it be banned? If someone was intended to get hurt, then that instance would be an exception, and not the general situation. There is a possibility that you will experience an epileptic seizure when you read this. It is a potential threat to your well-being in life because in the seizure you could very well ram your head inside the screen, causing a fatal electrocution. Everything on earth is a threat to someone's saftey, but somethings are greater threats than others. And on the topic of free speech being a threat, the Supreme Court ruled that no police agency can stop a political action because of its potential to become a threat, for the reason that it is absurd, and would certainly plunge us towards fascism.* But you could make the same message without arson! Arson means to intentionally burn the private property of someone else's. We've been talking about burning one's own flag this whole time, so you're wrong. *gawsh I hate having to bring up Nazis and stuff in my debates, I apologize to you and the readers. To end, I'd like to remind everybody that I have proven that the burning of the United States flag should remain covered by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, that it is not treasonous to burn a flag, and that it does not create an unreasonable disorder. I will end with a quote from the Majority opinion in Texas v. Johnson, which affirmed the right to free speech, even through flag desecration. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable."