I don't really know quite yet.

As far as should goes, I agree with you for the most part. I am sorry I was so unclear as to what I meant. All I was saying is that we are not arguing about what is or isn't legal now. We should be arguing about whether it should or shouldn't be legal. It doesn't only have to be because of morals, but it has to do with ideologies. You can't make the argument, "It should be legal because it is legal." We are arguing about the pros and cons of making it legal or illegal. Therefore the precedent set has nothing to do with it. You can make the arguments that they made when making it illegal, but don't argue that it already is legal. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. It doesn't just have to do with morals. By morals, I meant what I feel is right, and what anyone feels is right. Arguments should come from our logic and how we feel about certain topics. Not what the law tells us is right. Your argument on the environment are correct. If the flag being burned wasn't harmful to the environment, then by all means, this would not make it a bad thing. But flags are made with dyes and inks that are not good for the environment. By burning the flag, this allows for the dyes to melt and seep into the ground, or get into the smoke and into the air. These are two things that are bad for the environment. But if there was a more ecological way of doing it then this would not make it bad. The fact of the matter is, is that it is harmful, and therefore is bad. You say that my argument on lowering the flag isn't really what the flag stands for. My argument here is that the flag symbolizes freedom. By lowering that flag or not having the flag flying, this symbolizes the loss or not having freedom. So by not having our flag flying, this shows us that we no longer have our freedom. So because the flag symbolizes freedom, if our flag is burning, then we might assume that we no longer have our freedom. Take the statue of Saddam Hussein as an example. This statue was a representation of the oppression he had on his people. By taking Baghdad and lowering the statue, it was a symbol of the release of the Iraqi people from under his rule. The same goes for the flag. Without it, we have no symbol of freedom. You make the argument that burning the flag is a way to inspire people. I say that burning the flag is a sign of protest. As the resolution says, "burning the flag in protest..." so we agree that people burn the flag in protest. They don't burn it to inspire. So this argument falls. You yourself make a large logical leap here as well. You say that if this one supposed form of speech is banned, then we don't live in a free society at all. Even if ten forms of speech were banned, we still live in a free society because of the overwhelmingly large amounts of freedoms we still have. But in fact we do not live in an entirely free society because we are not allowed to murder without cause and steal from others. So we don't have all freedoms. Some freedoms are restricted in order to help others. I say that burning the flag should fall under one of these because it hurts others. For the people who honor the flag and view it as the symbol of our nation's freedom, this is seen as a hurtful act intended only to cause strife and uproar. Therefore this should be a restricted form of speech. You say that it is a peaceful form of protest, but here I present the argument about history. By burning the flag, you are saying that we should throw off our form of government and are sending a message of mutiny. Just like a flagbearer throwing the flag to the ground symbolizing defeat, so burning our flag symbolizes detest at the nation it represents. This is not peaceful. This is much like a declaration of war. Saying that your country is worthless. So this isn't a peaceful form of speech.