Resolved: American governments should not legislate against burning American flags in protest.

Before continuing, I would like to establish the following observations in this debate:Observation 1: Flag burning done in protest is a form of flag desecration, and while it is a specific form, flag desecration in general emphasizes the same message. Therefore, flag burning can be included in the general term of flag desecration if either side decides to call it as such. Observation 2: Because this debate takes place in context of the United States and a "should" is placed within the resolution in a question about legislation, the American Constitution is applicable if not necessary to speak on behalf of in this resolution in order to evaluate whethere flag descration should be banned. With these parameters established, I move toward the contentions for this round. Contention 1: Flag desecration prohibitions are an undue inhibition of American civil rights. Arguing in the sense of the American Constitution and free speech, flag desecration prohibitions are a violation to both. Henceforth, the prohibitions are contradictory to the foundational document of the United States in the sense of what guarantees rights in the country, providing reason why desecration should not be prohibitted. Sub-point 1a: Flag desecration prohibitions limit free speech and force patriotism. Flag desecration prohibitions stop the expression of an idealism through the use of a symbol. Main reasons as to why flag desecration prohibitions are done are because some are offended by the image, including members of Congress. This is a ridiculous reason in order to attempt to justify such prohibitions. "The following can be attributed to Terri Ann Schroeder, Senior Lobbyist with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:"Today's vote was a victory not for the flag, but for lawmakers seeking cheap political points. The flag is a symbol, and today's vote is an assault on the freedoms that it embodies. In a democracy, freedom means that we must tolerate all peaceful forms of expression, no matter how uncomfortable they make us feel, or how much we disagree. Lawmakers cannot silence individuals just because they don't agree with their message or how it is expressed. "" Sub-point 1b: The Constitution protects or would protect such expression. Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles explains the following on the Founding Fathers and their intention with expression of ideals through symbols in the American Constitution: The Framers were working within a late 18th century common-law legal system that generally treated symbolic expression and verbal expression the same. Speech restrictions -- such as libel, slander, sedition, obscenity and blasphemy -- covered symbolic expression on the same terms as verbal expression. Many cases and treatises, including Blackstone's "Commentaries" published in 1765 and often cited by the Framers' generation in America, said this about libel law. And early American court cases soon held the same about obscenity and blasphemy. Late 18th and early 19th century libel law cases and treatises gave many colorful examples: It could be libelous to burn a person in effigy, send him a wooden gun (implying cowardice), light a lantern outside his house (implying the house was a brothel), and engage in processions mocking him for his supposed misbehavior. This equality of symbolic expression and verbal expression was also applied to constitutional speech protection as well as to common-law speech restrictions. For instance, the first American court decision setting aside a government action on constitutional free speech or free press grounds (Brandreth v. Lance in 1839) treated the liberty of the press as covering paintings -- not just words. Supreme Court has in two instances voted for the unconstitutionality of flag desecration prohibitions:-Texas v. Johsnon (1989)-United States v. Eichman (1990)Contention 2: Prohibitions against flag desecration have no practicality. In the end of the day, there really are no practical or vital reasons as to why these prohibitions should stand and only end up increasing the amount of money taxpayers must pay in order to process people through the criminal justice system. . http://www.aclu.org...http://online.wsj.com...http://www.aclu.org...