Contender's choice.

"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." 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? I mean, you could at least do something like you said, stomp on it with manure-covered boots, but setting fire to it is a little...off. Besides, burnind stuff in public is usually bad. "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.)" Definition 2, violating allegiance. "I pledge allegiance to the flag..." How can you say the pledge to the flag if you just burned it? "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." 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. "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."" 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. "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." This is true, but what form of oppression can possibly be solved by burning the flag? "Also, that question implies that you agree with me. You concede that offensive actions can sometimes be needed to fight for a cause." No, I am saying that in this case, flag burning will not bring any oppression to the limelight. The key word is "sometimes". "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." That's it? Intent to kill? That's lame. "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." Okay, but burning the flag isn't safe or orderly, and is also quite ridiculous. "Yeah but its not treason in the US. Not even close." 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? "Burning the flag is, by most standards, outrageous. But it must be allowed, because all people are granted a voice to be heard." But you could make the same message without arson!