Why flag burning isn't a burning issue
Is it just a piece of cloth? Is it something more? If it is something more; how far should we go to protect it? And of course the most intriguing question of all: Why has no one adequately answered any of thses questions?
The first thing to realize is the misplacement of words. All these jingoist types refer to "The" Flag. That is the key problem. When you walk into a store and buy one, you are buying "A" Flag. It is one copy among millions. It is your property and you may do with it as you wish. So it’s not just a free speech issue; it’s also a property rights issue.
You may still find it’s desecration to be offensive, but should an offensive thing automatically be against the law? Furthermore, should we actually rewrite the constitution to protect it? It is annoying that the distinction between illegality and changing the constitution has not been made. In order for a constitutional amendment to be necessary the very security of the republic must be at stake. Damaging your own property does not quite live up to that standard now does it?
Many people have come up with many stupid ideas for many problems, but this one will never be beat. Why? Because it doesn’t address a real problem. There are many stupid "solutions" out there but at least they’re addressing real problems. Flag burning is little more than an annoyance. What would it take to convince me that it’s anything more? When some blond haired guy stands in front of a curtain and shouts "Leave the Flag alone!"