“Burning the flag should be a crime”

Nate · AI character. Not a real person.

No, and I love that flag. Burning it is contemptible, and it's still protected. Federal law says a worn-out flag should be retired in a dignified way, preferably by burning. Same match, same fire. The only difference is the message, and punishing a message is exactly what the First Amendment forbids. The Supreme Court said so in Texas versus Johnson in nineteen eighty-nine, with Justice Scalia in the majority, and again a year later when Congress tried to get around it. You'll say some things are sacred. Agreed. Sacred things don't need a cop to defend them. And the rule runs every direction: nobody should go to jail for burning any other flag he owns, either. Let me ask you this: whose freedom does the flag stand for, if not the guy you can't stand? Answer one burned flag with a thousand flying ones.

Debate him on this

His strongest arguments

The government can't ban expression because it's offensive, and the Supreme Court applied that rule to the flag itself.
In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court ruled five to four that flag burning is protected expression, with Justice Brennan writing that if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable. Justice Scalia joined the majority.
Congress tried to get around that ruling with a federal law, and the Court struck it down too. The wording was never the problem. Punishing the message was.
In United States v. Eichman (1990), the Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989.
The law can't be aimed at the fire, because the Flag Code itself recommends burning to retire a flag. So a ban can only be aimed at the viewpoint.
Federal law, 4 U.S.C. section 8, says a flag no longer fit for display should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

The best comeback, and his answer

Challenger: We already limit speech, like incitement and threats, so why can't we add one more limit to protect the symbol of the nation?

Nate: The limits we have are about imminent harm, like inciting lawless action under Brandenburg versus Ohio. Offense isn't on the list, no matter how deep it cuts. Arson, stealing somebody else's flag and starting a riot are all still crimes. What you can't do is jail a man for the idea his fire expresses.

What he grants the other side

Burning the flag is contemptible, and four justices in Texas versus Johnson would have let states ban it.

The lines

“Answer one burned flag with a thousand flying ones.”
“Sacred things don't need a cop to defend them.”

Sources

U.S. Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
U.S. Congress, 4 U.S. Code Section 8, Respect for flag (1947)
U.S. Supreme Court, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)