Honestly, flag burning as "free speech"... That's a kikery tbh That's not speech to begin with, that's a fucking abuse of the concept Like would you make a speech, speak to your mother, by burning stuffs in front of her? What sort of speech is that? Is waving a gun at someone a speech also? Why not? Oh that's right because it tends to send a confusing message, a tad life threatening... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Fighting_words In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words".[34] Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".[35] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult'".[36][37] “True threats of violence” that are directed at a person or group of persons that have the intent of placing the target at risk of bodily harm or death are generally unprotected.[38] However, there are several exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that "threats may not be punished if a reasonable person would understand them as obvious hyperbole", he writes.[39][40] Additionally, threats of "social ostracism" and of "politically motivated boycotts" are constitutionally protected.[41] ... >>speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight Does flag burning fall in that general direction? I would say yes, given some context of course, like during a fucking riot bordering on insurrection...