[dragonwriter]

The Flag Protection Act of 2005, the one cosponsored by Clinton, would have prohibited destroying the flag for the primary purpose of intimidation, inciting immediate violence, or terrorism.

While one can certainly argue that there is little merit in specially punishing that particular mechanism of achieving those unlawful ends, that clearly is not the same thing (or even a similar thing) to a general ban on flag burning.

Titles of laws are rarely accurate indications of their substance.

[MollyR]

Except who decides what that intimidation, violence or terrorism is ? If you are burning it in public, it could easily be spun different ways. We know some police officers treat minorities differently, so the line gets blurry.

Does a white college educated young person burn the flag with no consequences, and everyone else gets hit with intimidation ?

[Torgo]

These are great questions, but in the end they are ones that the left didn't bother to ask when they dropped a principled support of the first amendment for "hate speech" as intimidation, in particular on college campuses as enforced by the US Justice Department. Personally I am against criminalizing flag burning, but for the purpose of highlighting hypocrisy I would like to be the first conservative to cite Karl Popper to argue for it: tolerant societies have a right to be intolerant of intolerance. Burning the flag is hate speech and intimidation based on rejection of our shared American values, and shall be banned.

Anyone on the left who disagrees with this argument? Re-evaluate your own principles then, in a way that doesn't assume "my values are right and yours are wrong" in the context of a democratic republic.

[int_19h]

I'm on the left, and I disagree with your argument - but then again, I disagree with hate speech laws in general.

Then again, why is burning the flag necessarily "hate speech". I would dare say that it's perfectly legitimate way to protest any abuses that are carried out presumably in the name of that flag - like, say, Gitmo or Patriot Act.

[Torgo]

Why is anything "hate" speech?

[int_19h]

Because sometimes speech really is intended to arouse unmotivated hate in the audience. I don't have a problem calling such speech "hate speech" - it's a perfectly accurate label. It's also subjective, insofar any emotion is subjective, which is why it doesn't have place in law.

[dragonwriter]

The same people who would do so for an incitement to immediate violence, intimidation, or terrorism (which are generally illegal under other criminal laws alreadyn whether or not destroying a flag is involved): prosecutors, judges (trial and appellate), and juries.

Can these actors be unfair and express biases not in the text of the law? Sure. But that's more an argument for policies to address that problem than it is an argument against additional criminalization of a subset of a category of generally already-criminal acts. (And against which, I should add, there are plenty of other arguments.)

[vinay427]

Or as the more common adage goes, "don't judge a book by its cover."