I am against publicly desecrate the American flag. We have the technology to enforce, at least to some extent. I do feel like it should be punishable by fine. $200-$500.

That said, since the Right will stand on principles and allow it under freedom of speech, we should be smart and creative.

I bet it's illegal to set open fires in most cities. Fine people for: arson, causing riots, attacking cops when they try to break up crowds, noise ordinance violations, public intoxication, vandalism, destruction of city property, assault, disturbing the peace, blocking roadways, etc. Just to hire a lawyer it cost them $5-10k.

You don't have to make new laws, you just have to enforce laws already on the books in ways that protects the public. That's much tougher in democrat strongholds, but I'd attack the lunatic Left like they attack the Right. It's the laws already on the books and make it sting.

Trumps EO creates no new law. Simply instructs the DOJ to challenge current held notion that flag burning is free speech and then instructs the DOJ to make criminal referrals to local / state authorities.

It's actually a common sense approach to protecting the flag.

This is pure good Trump.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Trumps EO creates no new law. Simply instructs the DOJ to challenge current held notion that flag burning is free speech and then instructs the DOJ to make criminal referrals to local / state authorities.

---

That not all it says. Did you read it?

To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.

This is aimed directly at enforcing 18 USC 700, which was NOT overturned by Johnson v Texas.

I don't really know how this will turn up, but is certainly an issue worth exploring by Trump.

Im Gipper said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Trumps EO creates no new law. Simply instructs the DOJ to challenge current held notion that flag burning is free speech and then instructs the DOJ to make criminal referrals to local / state authorities.

---

That not all it says. Did you read it?

To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.

This is aimed directly at enforcing 18 USC 700, which was NOT overturned by Johnson v Texas.

I don't really know how this will turn up, but is certainly an issue worth exploring by Trump.

---

Did you? I said "instructs the DOJ to challenge current held notion that flag burning is free speech". Referring to the part you quoted and referenced.

I appreciate the assist, but why act like I didn't read it. Hell, until you I think I was the only one to post any of the text.

Because you acted like Trump was just referring cases to States. You left off a KEY part! Prosecution by the Attorney General!

It wasn't an assist, you missed the wide open dunk! I had to clean up after you! lol


Kidding aside, apologies if I misread what you were saying!

Im Gipper said:

---

Because you acted like Trump was just referring cases to States. You left off a KEY part! Prosecution by the Attorney General!

It wasn't an assist, you missed the wide open dunk! I had to clean up after you! lol

---

You make a poor assumption, clean it up for your own benefit, then act like you did me a favor? Get a grip Gipper.

Maybe not be so quick dancing on your hump to conclusions mat.

I clearly said he asking DOJ to challenge the free speech notion AND referring cases to states. In fact, said it previously on this thread.

No apologies needed, we good. I can slow down reading and responding at times as well.

I think it's funny Trump purposely makes the proclamations somewhat vague then you dig at the details and taste the nothing burger he just cooked for everyone.

Im Gipper said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Trumps EO creates no new law. Simply instructs the DOJ to challenge current held notion that flag burning is free speech and then instructs the DOJ to make criminal referrals to local / state authorities.

---

That not all it says. Did you read it?

To the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution, the Attorney General shall vigorously prosecute those who violate our laws in ways that involve desecrating the American Flag, and may pursue litigation to clarify the scope of the First Amendment exceptions in this area.

This is aimed directly at enforcing 18 USC 700, which was NOT overturned by Johnson v Texas.

I don't really know how this will turn up, but is certainly an issue worth exploring by Trump.

---

18 USC 700 was ruled unconstitutional in US v. Eichmann.

Few things:

1) Antonin Scalia was a great Supreme Court Justice and a genuinely kind and decent person.

2) The President's EO is consistent with Texas v. Johnson.

3) Texas v. Johnson was wrong and William Rehnquist was right.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) August 26, 2025

Oddly enough will looking at what constitutes a "protest" thus would be "protected speech" versus inciting a riot / violence / lawlessness / etc and not protected speech.

Seems just a few years ago Dems were all about trying to take "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" a crime of insurrection - and Trump kept his remark to just words. What a pickle it would have been for Dems if he had symbolically set the Flag on fire to demonstrate the end of democracy.

Assume JD is referring to Rehnquist's dissent:

Quote:

---

The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

---

Burning the flag should be met with a fine. It's a non violent form of free speech but I do agree it should have a punishment. Recommending jail time is an absolute joke though.

Banning the burning of the America flag is more anti-American than burning the American flag.

— Dylan Allman (@dylanmallman) August 25, 2025

t - cam said:

---

Burning the flag should be met with a fine. It's a non violent form of free speech but I do agree it should have a punishment. Recommending jail time is an absolute joke though.

---

as long as your thought pattern is consistent with pride flags, trans flags, palestinian flags and BLM flags i'm good with this.

and the fine should be for misdemeanor arson. Lighting a fire in public isn't free speech

So for the @jpodhoretz and everyone else on the Commentary podcast:

Trump fired Lisa Cook "For Cause" -- in line with the Supreme Court's recent decision. He did NOT fire her in contravention of that decision. The statute says members of the Fed Board of Governors can be…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 26, 2025

Quote:

---

the EO signed re flag burning expressly provides that it will not apply to any conduct that is otherwise covered by the First Amendment. It is right there in the text. It might inform your opinion if you took a moment to read it.

It criminalizes flag burning where it is the equivalent of "fighting words" which are not protected by the First Amendment - where the act of burning the flag is for the PURPOSE of inciting violence by others. As a form of protest, flag burning is still covered by Supreme Court precedent and the EO says exactly that.

---

Quote:

---

18 USC 700 was ruled unconstitutional in US v. Eichmann.

---

BigRobSA said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Neither is the correct answer. If he was going to do anything, he should have gone the other direction and made it illegal to charge people with hate crimes for non-violent offenses. Instead we are fighting liberalism with more liberalism.

---

Welcome to Trumpsylvania.

---

Thought crimes are stupid. That is the correct answer.

1) Can I burn wood that I own in a trash can at a Kansas City super-bowl tailgate in a public place? If it is cold outside, this is not all that uncommon.

2) As an Eagles fan, can I include a flag of the Kansas City Chiefs in the trash can that I burn at said Kansas City super bowl party?

3) Can I also include a US flag in the trash can that I burn at said super bowl party?

#2 is just as inflammatory as #3, maybe even more so.

Burning a flag is political speech. Burning a US flag is currently protected political speech. Some people don't want it to be protected political speech. I'm actually OK with people that have that opinion. It is a valid opinion.

But, I am of the opinion that it should be protected political speech, just so that we can identify the idiots that do it on social media, and I don't wind up hiring them.

It's OK to disagree.

Iowa man sentenced to about 15 years in prison after burning an LGBTQ flag hanging from a church

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/21/us/iowa-man-burns-lgbt-flag-church-trnd

BMX Bandit said:

---

We have our first arrest!

BREAKING: A veteran has been arrested for burning an American flag outside the White House, hours after Trump signed an executive order mandating one year in prison for flag burning.
pic.twitter.com/pk4mRNQOPN

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) August 25, 2025

If the charge is burning in public, that's not unconstitutional.


If the charge is desecrating the flag, that's unconstitutional

---

Update:

Quote:

---

Jay Carey, 54, of North Carolina, is charged with lighting a fire in an undesignated area and lighting a fire in a manner that causes damage to real property or park resources. Both counts are Class "B" misdemeanors, also known as petty misdemeanors, which are the lowest category of federal offense. They carry a maximum sentence of no more than 6 months in prison and are typically resolved in D.C. with a small fine.

---

So not charged with desecration of the flag.


https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-against-veteran-who-burned-flag-outside-white-house/65-c69b8aa9-40c4-48d7-a0eb-fe704c7f8d0b

91AggieLawyer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Freedom of speech is also freedom to be an ******* publicly.

I'm not cool with banning any form of non-threatening political speech.

---

Flag burning is NOT speech.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The entire point of free speech is to allow hateful speech.
You don't have to agree with it, but you have to allow it.

It has the side benefit that it helps you easily identify anti-american, commie *******s

This is very bad Trump

deddog said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Freedom of speech is also freedom to be an ******* publicly.

I'm not cool with banning any form of non-threatening political speech.

---

Flag burning is NOT speech.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The entire point of free speech is to allow hateful speech.
You don't have to agree with it, but you have to allow it.

It has the side benefit that it helps you easily identify anti-american, commie *******s

This is very bad Trump

---

Can you burn anything and call it speech? Make burning things on federal property a felony. Period, the end.

flown-the-coop said:

---

deddog said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Freedom of speech is also freedom to be an ******* publicly.

I'm not cool with banning any form of non-threatening political speech.

---

Flag burning is NOT speech.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The entire point of free speech is to allow hateful speech.
You don't have to agree with it, but you have to allow it.

It has the side benefit that it helps you easily identify anti-american, commie *******s

This is very bad Trump

---

Can you burn anything and call it speech? Make burning things on federal property a felony. Period, the end.

---

What if you didn't burn it, but desecrated it instead? What if you wrote Death to America on it?

deddog said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

deddog said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Freedom of speech is also freedom to be an ******* publicly.

I'm not cool with banning any form of non-threatening political speech.

---

Flag burning is NOT speech.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The entire point of free speech is to allow hateful speech.
You don't have to agree with it, but you have to allow it.

It has the side benefit that it helps you easily identify anti-american, commie *******s

This is very bad Trump

---

Can you burn anything and call it speech? Make burning things on federal property a felony. Period, the end.

---

What if you didn't burn it, but desecrated it instead? What if you wrote Death to America on it?

---

I don't like it and condone beating him with a bar of soap in a wet tube sock prison style, but I don't think you can make a law on putting graffiti on your personal property.

Quote:

---

What if you didn't burn it, but desecrated it instead? What if you wrote Death to America on it?

---

Or just scribbled on it.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

What if you didn't burn it, but desecrated it instead? What if you wrote Death to America on it?

---

Or just scribbled on it.

---

Cursive, print or all caps?

I think there is a certain visceral reaction that burning the flag creates. Its particularly offensive. But more than that, its flipping dangerous.

No burning **** on federal property. I would think that would already be covered but I guess not.

Can you burn a flag in the Capitol Rotunda? Oval Office? Library of Congress? On the National Mall on a windy, dry day next to dead cherry blossom trees?

Point is if you want people to not be able to burn things, then ban burning things.

flown-the-coop said:

---

deddog said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

deddog said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Freedom of speech is also freedom to be an ******* publicly.

I'm not cool with banning any form of non-threatening political speech.

---

Flag burning is NOT speech.

---

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The entire point of free speech is to allow hateful speech.
You don't have to agree with it, but you have to allow it.

It has the side benefit that it helps you easily identify anti-american, commie *******s

This is very bad Trump

---

Can you burn anything and call it speech? Make burning things on federal property a felony. Period, the end.

---

What if you didn't burn it, but desecrated it instead? What if you wrote Death to America on it?

---

I don't like it and condone beating him with a bar of soap in a wet tube sock prison style, but I don't think you can make a law on putting graffiti on your personal property.

---

Well of course. And "just because you can burn the flag, doesn't mean you should."
And I would hope that no one on here would ever burn the American flag, or desecrate it.

But I do very strongly believe that allowing hateful speech is the most important component of free speech. We are truly the only country in the world that has this level of free speech, and that is something to be celebrated. Change it, and we are just like everyone else.

Open, uncontained fires are banned in most places you would see a flag or anything else be burned by protestors. Just enforce the existing fire ordinances or force protestors to burn stuff in an approved burn device that would take all of the emotional push away from it.

deddog said:

---

Well of course. And "just because you can burn the flag, doesn't mean you should."
And I would hope that no one on here would ever burn the American flag, or desecrate it.

But I do very strongly believe that allowing hateful speech is the most important component of free speech. We are truly the only country in the world that has this level of free speech, and that is something to be celebrated. Change it, and we are just like everyone else.

---

Speak all the hate you want and write it out if you must.

Burning things is not speech. There are plenty of other mechanisms to get your message across without also being dangerous.

I am all about free speech. In fact, I am adamant about folks working to ban words. Incensed about banning people on social media.

But I don't think we need to allow flag burning as protected speech. They could play a 3-d hologram of it burning or put it on a projector.

But one could address the physical burning without restricting anyones voice.

flown-the-coop said:

---

deddog said:

---

Well of course. And "just because you can burn the flag, doesn't mean you should."
And I would hope that no one on here would ever burn the American flag, or desecrate it.

But I do very strongly believe that allowing hateful speech is the most important component of free speech. We are truly the only country in the world that has this level of free speech, and that is something to be celebrated. Change it, and we are just like everyone else.

---

Speak all the hate you want and write it out if you must.

Burning things is not speech. There are plenty of other mechanisms to get your message across without also being dangerous.

I am all about free speech. In fact, I am adamant about folks working to ban words. Incensed about banning people on social media.

But I don't think we need to allow flag burning as protected speech. They could play a 3-d hologram of it burning or put it on a projector.

But one could address the physical burning without restricting anyones voice.

---

Got it. Makes sense.

A huge reason for folks wanting to physically burn it is to get the enraged reaction of folks and for the notoriety. Pushing the boundaries of extreme but supposedly legal behavior.

The very fact they are wanting to incite a reaction by the physical burning is what Trump and others want to get at. But stick to what you can and cannot do but that achieves a similar outcome.

It is an act of Arson. Lock them up.

And have you ever noticed this bull**** about freedom of speech only goes one way?

It won't get past the first week before yet another dem judge strikes it down. I guess freedom of speech and all but I hate seeing those ****ers desecrate an American flag. I'm torn on this. It probably does lead us to a slippery slope of dems saying things can't be said or done because it offends them.