By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump recently issued an executive order directing federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against individuals who burn the American flag during protests. This action aims to circumvent a 1989 Supreme Court decision, *Texas v. Johnson*, which protects flag burning as a form of protected political expression under the First Amendment. The order instructs the US attorney general to explore charges like disturbing the peace or environmental violations, rather than directly criminalizing flag burning. Trump has a long history of advocating for consequences for flag burning, a stance shared by a majority of Americans according to recent polling.
Read the original article here
Trump signs order to criminally charge those who burn US flag in protest. This certainly raises a lot of eyebrows, doesn’t it? The immediate thought that springs to mind is, isn’t this a bit of a legal minefield? We’re talking about the First Amendment here, the one that guarantees freedom of speech. And burning the American flag, as a form of protest, has a pretty established history in legal precedent.
The Supreme Court, way back in 1989 in the *Texas v. Johnson* case, actually ruled that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment. It’s considered expressive conduct, a way of communicating a message. Congress even tried to pass a law against it with the “Flag Protection Act,” but the Supreme Court struck that down too, in *United States v. Eichman* in 1990. So, we’re talking about a well-trodden legal path where the Supreme Court has pretty clearly stated that flag burning is protected speech.
Now, the idea of Trump attempting to criminalize flag burning via an executive order is where things get really interesting, and by interesting, I mean legally questionable. Executive orders, as many people are pointing out, aren’t laws. They can direct the executive branch to do certain things, but they can’t simply overturn Supreme Court decisions. It’s like trying to rewrite the rules of the game while standing on the sidelines. It just doesn’t work that way, and definitely not when it runs counter to a constitutional principle.
The whole situation raises a lot of questions about the underlying motivations. Is it a genuine attempt to protect the flag, or is it more about playing to a certain segment of the population? Is it a distraction from other issues, perhaps? The call for releasing the Epstein files underscores this potential for diversion, shifting focus onto something else entirely.
The irony of the situation isn’t lost on anyone. The same people who often champion “free speech” are now potentially trying to punish a form of free speech they disagree with. It’s a clash of values, a seeming contradiction that many are rightfully calling out. The very people who used to scream “muh free speech!” are now the ones trying to curb it, which is definitely not a good look.
There’s also a lot of skepticism surrounding the idea. Some people are cynical, pointing out that this might be a way to stir up controversy or to signal to a particular base of voters. The fact that this is being pushed when it has been legally established as protected free speech makes it difficult to believe in any other motive.
The reactions are strong, and that’s understandable. The flag holds a special place in American symbolism, representing the nation’s values and history. For some, flag burning is deeply offensive, a desecration. For others, it’s a powerful form of protest. But in a nation that values free speech, the right to express even unpopular opinions, even offensive ones, is paramount. And there is the point that the flag can be worn as clothing or used to advertise someone’s face but can’t be burned for the sake of protest.
The issue isn’t just about flag burning; it’s about the broader question of where the lines are drawn when it comes to free speech. Does the government have the right to punish people for expressing themselves, even if that expression is unpopular or even offensive? The fact that this issue has already been decided in the courts only serves to complicate matters.
The conversation also highlights some deep divisions. The call for the release of the Epstein files, the attacks on the former president, the overall tone of frustration, all point to a society struggling with its own values and principles. The anger and frustration are palpable.
The core of the matter is: if you’re going to swear to defend the Constitution, then defend the damn Constitution. If flag burning is protected speech, then it’s protected speech. Any attempt to go against that is, at its core, an attack on the First Amendment, the bedrock of free expression in this country. It’s a simple concept, but one that is clearly being ignored here.