Flag burning and right to free speech

[swatiraohnlu]

The most common justification for the limitation of an instance of free speech is that national security or public safety is jeopardized by that instance. It follows that flag burning must be demonstrated as jeopardizing national security or public safety if it is to be prohibited. Certainly, there is not overt, direct harm done to national security or public safety by flag burning; it is purely a symbolic act.

What stand do you take in prohibition of flag burning v. free speech?

 

[swatiraohnlu]

The national flag is a symbol of nationhood and national unity that ought to be protected from abuse. The flag is a unique symbol that has been cherished by the population since the foundation. The freedom of expression must be balanced against the important societal interests that are represented by the flag. Given the existence of alternative methods of expression that do not harm these ideals of national unity, the balance is in favour of the prohibition of flag desecration.

 

[swatiraohnlu]

The purpose of free speech protection is the advancement of discourse, knowledge, and truth, but flag burning adds nothing to any of these objectives. The theories of John Milton and J. S. Mill make this point. We have recognized that The US Supreme Court has developed these theories through regularly using the metaphor of the "marketplace of ideas". Free speech allows the value and accuracy of different ideas to be publicly discussed, rejected, accepted or developed. Yet, flag burning does not contribute to any dialogue or exchange of ideas. It is the opposite of calm and rational debate.