100,000 Protestors... Angry mobs of students...

[innerSpaceman]

Well, then I would suggest the matter of whose property the flag was is very salient, as Alex previously suggested. Because if the property burned did not belong to the kid lighting the fire, whether in protest or not, it was a case of arson. Lighting fire to someone else's property in protest is not free speech. It matters not if the property has some symbolic meaning that burning conveys.


I think criminal prosecution of this particular matter is absurd. But I can see where it clearly falls into criminal jurisdiction.



edited to add:

Also, it need not be your own ignited property to protect you from criminal intent. I suppose the KKK brings its own crosses. Where does the Supreme Court stand on that?

Is speech protected when it's hate speech? When it's initimidating speech?

Is flag burning merely a political statement? Or can it be hate speech and/or threatening?