Flag Burning Should be Legal

This could have been a clever tactic in order to attack the constitutionality of flag burning in Iran, but you don't actually attack the constitutionality of the action. But when we look at this statement what we can see is that Flags have been burned and that people did not stop the flag burning. However neither of these two things necessarily mean it is constitutional to do this. Breaking down the two claims we can see why. "A) No legal action was taken or attempts to stop the burning were taken. This first off all is unverifiable, we are not sure if actions were taken either way, and judging by the illegality of the act we can assume their were. Secondly we must keep in mind that just because no one was persecuted doesn't mean it is legal. For instance if I shoot Chuck Norris and kill him, and no one finds out that doesn't mean killing or shooting Chuck Norris is legal. "B) Freedom of Assembly, and Protests. Pleco assumes that because their is the right to assemble than their is the right to protest, but that is a fallacy. This image http://amautadiaries.files.wordpress.com...... shows police breaking up a protest, which is illegal. Further more the U.S. separates the rights to protest and gathering, meaning they are two different entities and thus not protected by the same thing. Ergo the same logic can once again be applied to the already stated gathering of people" Honestly, after looking at copies of the constitution translated into English, I couldn't find one thing that mentioned flag burning or protesting... So I automatically make the assumption based on that article, considering there is no other article that I know of covering protests or flag burning. Since the constitution does infact give people the right to gather, however, it doesn't specify what they should gather for. Cherymenthol the Omnipotent uses an image in order to prove a point, however the image in unreliable, due to the fact there is no information that goes along with it. Without understanding the circumstances of the event, it is fair to say it is an unreliable source, and could even be irrelevant. I would also like to point out that the US and Iran are not the same country, what might be different to the US might not be different to Iran. "I will gladly post how it is illegal, burning the current Iranian national flag, even by political opponents, violates the spirit of the words Allahu Akbar and so that would be seen as a religious insult, and thus unconstitutional. However it is the affirmative job to show how it is illegal. So I will gladly refute those claims once presented." The Iranian flag isn't the only kind of peanut butter on the fluffernutter my friend. The Iranian national flag would certainly be considered an insult to the Iranian people, however burning an American flag or a Israeli flag might be more acceptable. "I will interpret this remark as meaning free speech is bad. My opponent states that flag burning is a way to voice opinions, and because free speech is bad flag burning is bad. And because bad legislation is a no-no it need be made illegal in places where it is not. This does two things it shows how my opponent concedes, and fills the other half the resolution (determining whether or not it should be banned)." I stated what flag burning is, it is a way to express someone's political views... However, I never said that free speech is good. The only reason I support flag burning is to get political views which I support noticed, kind of like advertisement... I honestly couldn't care less about whatever other reason someone has for burning a flag. However, it is essential that other groups be allowed to burn flags, because that would effect our right. I would like to point out that my nemesis here does not reside in Iran... Due to the fact his account says he lives in West Palm Beach Florida in the United States... I shall quote myself: "Well, I will be honest with you, I was expecting someone living in the United States, but I shall put up with your conditions because I like you. Please understand that if you live in the United States, and not Iran (currently) I shall not consider Iran your country, only your country of origin." I started this debate on my terms, only accepting your terms to be fair due to the fact I said "I shall accept the burden of proof that flag burning is constitutional for your country", your country being the two key words.