Flag Burning

Since the 1989, Texas v. Johnson, flag burning has been a legal form of protected speech under the Constitution.  While there are many that oppose this action and who have attempted to amend the Constitution to favor flag burning, I believe that this rght should be protected.  Like Penn and Teller, I too fell that an actual flag is only a superficial, material representation of the United States.  Opponents of flag burning claim that in burning the flag people are destroying the principles upon which our country stands: liberty, freedom, and independence.

While I feel a strong affection for the American flag, also affectionately feeling powerful symbolism and personal emotional response, I recognize that a flag is merely a physical object of little to no worth.  Therefore, I support legality of flag burning.

With that said, however, I must proclaim my distaste for flag burning.  I see it as a voice without action, an empty opinion.  The only reason to burn a flag is gain visibility, utilizing our all-powerful media, an institution in our modern society that absolutely disgusts me, to promote oneself.  The use of flag burning, I also feel, is often abused, using media attention to draw attention to the individual for the sake of attention or in order to abuse another's view of opinion.  I cannot think of a case in which burning a flag, led to some sort of positive action and movement.  I only see cases where it angers large groups of people, proving only divisive and creation only dissension.  

I have here a few very interesting sites, describing some similar and some fairly disparate views of this issue, but all with very good information:

- http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/trials/conlaw/flagburning.htm

- http://www.esquilax.com/flag/

- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1207804,00.html

My greatest principle support of my country is to follow the Constitution in every way.  So whether I agree with it or not, I do not judge or condemn those those that burn flag.  It is a part of these protected speech, and to oppose it is slightly archaic, idealistic, maybe a bit futile, and against what the Constitution supports at this time.