The law concerning protesting against a specific issue can be related to the principle known as the Tinker standard (Pember and Calvert 92). As the existing rules concerning protesting for veteran’s state, the protesters may voice their disagreement regarding a particular issue as long as the time, manner and venue chosen for protesting “are considered neutral” (Pember and Calvert 116). The problem under consideration can be defined as a common law issue. According to the principles set in the First Amendment, the citizens of the Unite States have the right to voice their protests, as well as to hold the meetings during which they express their concern with the current state of political affairs within the country: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” (Legal Information Institute para. 2). This right for involvement into the political affairs of the United States was documented in the Constitution of the United States after the famous case concerning the protest against the War in Vietnam. Started by two students, Christopher Eckhardt and Mary Beth Tinker, the protest resulted in a major court case, which, in its turn, triggered the decision to allow public protesting as long as it did not disrupt the public life (Pember and Calvert 92). Also known as the Tinker standard (Pember and Calvert 92), the case in point has set the principle, in accordance with which public protests can be hold once they comply with the basic principles of human rights. It should be born in mind, though, that the burning of the American flag, which was carried out by the veterans, can be viewed as a major obstacle to justifying the protest. Indeed, the existing regulations show that the specified action is defined as flag desecration can be interpreted as an affront of the citizen of the United States, as well as the disdain for the law. It should be born in mind, though, that the process of flag burning, while admittedly bearing an extremely negative implication for the opponents of the protesters, is not viewed as a misdemeanor in the United States. Though the attempts to promote the flag desecration amendment in the present-day set of rules and regulations have taken place, the effects of these endeavors were futile. At present, the flag burning cannot be deemed as a crime. While the protest itself did not bear any threat to the bystanders and did not presuppose any violent actions towards the opponents, it should still be born in mind that the embers of the protest burnt the American flag, which can be defined as the disdain for the law. The desecration of the flag is not viewed as a punishable offense, though; hence, the participants of the protest cannot be arrested. From the legal perspective, the veterans have not committed anything that can be interpreted as a crime. The issue regarding the disclosure of information on the possible health risk and the restrictions imposed on the information carrier, described in the specified case, fall under the category of the common law. As far as the specific area of media law, which the problem in question can be related to, the privacy issue should be touched upon. Indeed, acco