I think his point is that, simply because a statement might not have a clear meaning when presented without sufficient context, does not mean that it’s not a valid form of speech.
But I never claimed that it was an invalid form of speech. I agree that current laws to prevent flag desecration would violate the current interpretation of the First Amendment. I agree that a new amendment to make an end run on that interpretation would be a violation of the ideal of the First Amendment.
However, there have been statements made in this thread (including in the specific post to which I responded) that the meaning of desecrating the flag is a clear one. Given that I have seen the flag burned to express loathing for the idea of the nation, loathing for what the nation has become, mourning over the failed nature of the nation, and simple anti-authoritarian defiance, I deny any specific claim that there is clear meaning inherent in desecrating the flag.
Excepting ‘anti-authoritarian defiance’, generally, burning a flag makes this statement: The flag is soiled, because of (X, Y, Z) and thus, must be burnt, according to the handling of the flag. It’s certainly speech. Political speech, usually.
Of course, sometimes it’s just ‘I’m an idiot’, too.
Yet all of those meanings constitute political speech.
Not because they’re trolling, though, but because they are infringements upon other people’s rights and are NOT political speech. We do indeed extend absolute protection to political speech under the 1st Amendment.
Can you see a meaningful way to separate them, to say that distasteful or semicoherent political speech need not be protected, or only actual words rather than symbols, only verbal and not physical actions? Who gets to decide which speech is distasteful or semicoherent?
Yes. It’s not a slope at all. It’s a clear crossing of a sharp, bright line, one which lies at the heart of our national identity.
Well, not for that reason@! 
That depends on what your definition of “flag” is.
CMC fnord!
Given that one of the defnitions of “flag” is “to hang limply; droop,” I tend to think of a flag as something ithat is capable of hanging limply and drooping. Maybe the one in Shodan’s picture is just way heavy on the starch, but it looks to me more like it’s simply an image of the flag printed on a piece of poster board. No more illegal to sign than a cancelled American flag postage stamp is to throw into a Dempsey Dumpster.
Given that “hanging limply or drooping” is the one attribute NOT commonly associated with ol’ Slick Willie, you may be onto something there.
Regards,
Shodan
Before I let this die, I just wanted to say that yesterday I attended an Independence Day Parade that had mixed political allegiances (based on what floats got what amounts of applause), and when the color guard went by to open the parade, I was one of about four guys in the crowd that bothered to stand or remove my hat.
People want a fucking amendment to protect the flag and they can’t be bothered to either learn, or actually show, respect for it.
I hate everybody.
Good night.
Yes, because we all know that strict and unwavering adherance to ritual is the cornerstone of a civilized society.
You know, I hadn’t thought about it quite like that before, but this is an excellent point. As has been noted, this isn’t a move to protect the flag as much as it is a move against people who express political views by burning that flag. The fact that so many people who support this amendment don’t bother to observe the customary respect illustrates this point nicely.