Contender's choice.

"Yes, well, imagine voodoo. You're taking a doll shaped like a person, and you're shoving needles into it, with the intent of harming that person. That's what flag burning is like." Doing something that is designed to cause harm to a person(voodoo mAjik) is incomparable to an expression of anger (flag burning.) While both actions involve the manipulation of objects in order to make something happen, the first action is designed to cause physical harm, while the other is an expression of opinion, which may offend the weak at heart. "Not only that, but it's treasonous." Because you avoided the first two definitions of treason, the ones that actually involve a nation-state, your definition is invalid. The one that you did use cannot be applied to a governmental situation, and can only be applied in domestic instances (I.E. Cheating on one's spouse.) "In definition 3, the government trusts/is confident that you will be a faithful citizen." In this country, the government is designed to fear its people, not have the people fear its government. The government allows for dissent because it keeps good ideas moving forward. In a democratic republic such as ours, the only thing that the government expects and demands of its citizens is that it obeys the laws of the nation. To say otherwise is overly nationalistic, and rather fascist. "But apparently you don't want to be a faithful citizen if you're going to burn the symbol of freedom. One could also possibly argue over definition 1." Obviously you don't believe in the freedom that the flag represents. In short, REAL freedom means you have the freedom to do anything, even show disdain towards a widely accepted "symbol of freedom." To burn a flag of any country does not overthrow its government in any form Nor does it harm or kill the sovereign. (Unless he's wrapped in the flag. But that is a completely different story) Not to mention, the Constitution of the United States makes a specific definition of what the government may call treason. Article III Section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist 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." To light a flag on fire does not hurt anybody, it is a statement. It does not aid any enemy. "True, but what oppression is the government holding on us now?" Although neither you, nor I, may find the government too oppressive in our comfy, white, middle-class lives, there are still major social ills in the country.(don't act like I don't know you.) Travel to an inter city ghetto. Travel to a suburban neighborhood where every home is being foreclosed, sending families out on the street. As this happens, notice the CEOs who make 500 times more than their company employee. There are still many injustices that the government has not addressed. In the 1940's, the civil rights of black americans was not on the forefront of the average person's mind. It took radical actions (flag burning= radical action) for it to be realized as a major injustices by most. My point, radical actions can bring oppression to the limelight. Also, that question implies that you agree with me. You concede that offensive actions can sometimes be needed to fight for a cause. "What if I were to say that while waving various firearms above my head and claiming I have the respective addresses of said officials? When you burn the flag, it is much the same, because not only do you want to do this, but you demonstrate the capacity to do so (using fire)." If you were to wave firearms above your head and have addresses of officials, then you would be charged with either intent to murder, or being a complete idiot in public. When one burns a US flag, you indicate that you are very angry with the United States, to the point of wishing to desecrate one of its symbols. That's all. The usage of fire simply is part of the desecration of the flag. Say that instead of burning the flag, I step on it with boots covered in manure. To say that I have the means to take down the government with stinky boots, is ridiculous. And yes, they do relate because they are both expressions that are controversial, and nothing more. "I'm not saying that we should ignore the First Amendment, but acts of speech that are treasonous should not be tolerated." Yeah but its not treason in the US. Not even close. Here's why. 1. No one is hurt. 2. It doesn't take down the government. It offers opposing opinions, one of the things that the government in this nation thrives on. 3. It simply doesn't fill the prerequisite set by the Constitution. To finish, here is a quote by the United States' 16th National Security Adviser, 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 65th Secretary of State, Colin Powell. "The First Amendment exists to insure that freedom of speech and expression applies not just to that with which we agree or disagree, but also that which we find outrageous." Burning the flag is, by most standards, outrageous. But it must be allowed, because all people are granted a voice to be heard.