Should burning the American flag be legal?

WordsMatter

You seriously posted this when the top thread on the site is this exact argument. Why? You really couldn't just go post in the thread that is already there? Why constantly spam the site?

MayCaesar

The American flag is an object, a property. It can belong to an individual, or it can belong to the state. We have multiple possibilities here of the context of flag burning, so let us explore them all.

1. An individual burns the flag belonging to them.
Should be legal, because it is their private property and it is up to them how to treat it.

2. An individual burns the flag belonging to another individual.
Should be legal only given the consent of the individual owning the flag. Otherwise it is vandalism of private property, which is defended by the law, hence the action should be taken against the individual.

3. An individual burns the flag belonging to the state.
This is a very complicated situation, with many details that can affect its legal standing. In most cases it will be considered an act of vandalism; however, the US constitution (and some other constitutions) prescribes situations in which people can legally take arms against the government, and destruction of governmental property is somewhere in between vandalism and legal rebellion. 
Should an individual during, say, a legally sanctioned protest near the Congress building be able to walk to the building, snap off a flag and burn it? I do not know.

4. The state burns the flag belonging to the state.
Again, this is pretty complicated, since the flag technically belongs both to the state and to the people, and burning this flag without the explicit consent from the people can be seen as usurpation of power. When can the government destroy governmental property? I think a professional lawyer would be needed to provide an informed answer.

5. The state burns the flag belonging to the individual.
Should be legal only given the consent of the individual owning the flag. That said, there are situations in which the individual property can (temporarily or permanently) be transferred to the government - for example, if the individual is unable to repay a loan to the state, and the state takes control of their possessions. If that happens, see 4.

I also should note that burning of any piece of property should only be done in a way that does not endanger anyone else or their property. If burning a flag causes a fire that consumes multiple houses, for example, then this is a crime of arson.

Note how the fact that it is the flag does not enter the equation in any way in my consideration. A flag is a property, that is all it is in my eyes, from the legal standpoint. Everything I said applies to any property: flags, houses, cars, spoons, clothes, etc. I would only make an exception for living beings, such as animals or plants, because, in my opinion, an organic living being should not be classified as property in the first place.

with_all_humility

• oops

with_all_humility

@MayCaesar

Response to situation #1:  It is of my opinion that burning of US Flag should not be allowed unless it is for the proper retirement of a used flag.  Such demonstrations of burning the flag as a response to political opposition should be made illegal.  For the following reasons:   

1. Old Glory is a national treasure 
2. It is viewed by many as a beacon of freedom throughout the world.  
3. It disrespects those who have given the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our great nation
4. It disrespects our nation's leaders, whether we agree with our leaders or not.  We should have the moral maturity to respect the office that they hold and those who elected them to the position 
5. It a person has to stoop to such a low, as to burn the American flag to have their political voice heard.  Then they did not have a very good argument to begin with
6. Most who engage in such actions are from the political left.  Who claim to believe that hate speech, microaggressions, and the likes are wrong and should be made illegal.  Then they should begin by practicing what they preach
7. Vugar behavior never helps in a debate or cause, such actions only build walls that hinder communication
8. Such actions could and have incited riots, which is not protected speech.

Situation #2:  This absolutely should and is illegal.  A person cannot destroy another person's personal property.  While it is not a high crime, it is a crime none the less. 

Situation #3:  The destruction of state property is illegal as well.  One only has the legal authority to destroy/disregard one's own property.  Property of the state is not personal property regardless if you are a taxpayer on not.  

Situation #4:  The state (ie government) and its employees are to abide by proper flag etiquette (see here: http://www.usflag.org/flagetiquette.html).  The only sanctioned time the state burns a flag is for the disposal of a retired flag.  As a government employee, I can tell you it is against government employment regulations to affiliate oneself in any political activism during hours of employment and or while in a government uniform.  

Situation #5:  The only instance of this should be when an individual renderer one's property to the state (in this case a US flag) for proper retirement/destruction as per proper flag etiquette. 

"Note how the fact that it is the flag does not enter the equation in any way in my consideration"

• Here in lies a prominent issue; viewing our nation's symbol as mere property.  While a person does purchase a US flag, patriotism should be something that is instilled into all.  You do not view an animal as property, so they should be protected.  But you view the US Flag a property despite millions sacrificing their lives so that this country can and does exist.  

with_all_humility

YeshuaBought said:

I see it as a free speech issue. Those who say no have never been denied justice by the establishment government. I have by the government, so that is why I say yes. No justice, no peace for the oppressors.

Define denial of justice?  Not asking specifics...This denial of justice was is made by a particular representative of the government or by the government as a whole.  I would agree with you if justice has been denied to you by the government as a whole.  However, I cannot begin to think of a situation that could constitute such a thing.  Closest that comes to mind would be government sanctioned slavery, genocide or some other heinous act.