Flag Burning is not acceptable.

Critical analysis of social issues here in America is a vital aspect of improving living standards. It is no wonder that with this in mind, people readily take stances in support of 'Symbolic speech'. A rather common movement, a quaint attempt to silence those who oppose such expression has been a project in the making for nearly a century.

This now sparks the question: Why is this acceptable?

Before explaining why this controversial topic is politically acceptable (or even not politically acceptable), it would be much more prudent to consider the fact that it may be negatively impacting veteran suicide rates.

Setting aside statistics momentarily, perhaps some of the most common results of serving in the Armed Forces include paranoia, Tourette's, PTSD or even complete mental instability. One who would risk contraction or development of such complications to normal life deserves better than a return home to witness these acts. A return home in which they see it has become a common practice to burn a symbol of what they have risked everything to fight for. Undoubtedly, even a deficit of veterans may have already taken their own lives due to feeling like a result of complete dereliction.

To return to the topic of why this is or isn't acceptable, there are many key things one must consider.

1) As previously mentioned, flag burning has logically perceivable effects on veteran suicide rates
2) Flag burning is disrespectful
3) Even those who defend Flag Burning as a right of expression do not typically agree that it should be socially accepted.

Since when are such actions even remotely alright in the minds of those who carry them out? When one resides in a nation and has legal citizenship status in that region, they typically have a voice. That voice directly impacts and alters political decisions collectively made. Why-when said person may protest in a peaceful, creative fashion-would they make the decision to so brutally express anger and distaste with their home? Some may even argue that such acts may be perceived as condemnation or violent acts against their nation. In 2008 when Barack H. Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States, protestors burned black, cloth dolls to represent their condemnation of him. By people all over the political spectrum and by politicians all over the radar, these were perceived as death threats. How is this any different for a nation? Quite frankly, it isn't. If anything, desecration of a national symbol may be perceived symbolically as an image of destruction of that nation, which falls in line with domestic terrorism.

A common stance taken in defense of Flag Burning is to state that it is a guaranteed, constitutional right. To discuss why this is actually not a constitutionally protected right, Liberal Ignominy has consulted their Constitutions and critically analyzed the situation.

I.A - S1
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Rewording the first amendment, Congress can not mandate or nationally establish a religion, or infringe people's ability to worship in the name of that religion. They may not prevent the American public from verbally expressing their opinions, publishing those opinions in newspapers or similar places, assembling for a protest, or signing petitions to promote change in policy.

To tackle the argument that flag burning is "symbolic speech" please take note of how "symbolic speech" is defined.
Symbolic Speech is Articulate verbal expression designed to represent a greater idea, thought, or purpose.

So not only is calling the act of burning an object "Symbolic speech" poorly considered, but it is incorrect.

Digging further into the clutter of this currently controversial issue, speech is literally defined as "the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds" meaning that burning a cloth flag produces no audible sounds which further political thoughts or feelings. (Crackling is subjective) This makes the mentioned argument invalid, if not completely invalid.

A final point which completely renders flag burning unjustifiable is it's contradictory meaning.
The flag burner is claiming they are utilizing their freedoms, while burning something which symbolizes a nation which generally upholds their freedoms.
If it does not make sense, why do it?

Rhetorically, why is this acceptable?

This must change! Please urge your legislators to push statutes which criminalize flag burning.