Shall preventing burning it be prohibited? Why is that opinion any less important?
A flag burner says, "No speech is more pure than my burning a flag in public." If that's so, then certainly the converse is true: no speech is more pure than acting to prevent the burning of that flag in public.
They are two perfectly complementary sides of the same first amendment coin.
You are arguing that only side should be recognized and that government should punish anyone who disagrees. That assigns a higher value to the flag burner's speech. That is neither just nor right.
It's not just an opinion, it's assault. You know the old saying- your rights end where my nose begins. You have no more right to assault a flag-burner than he does to douse you in lighter fluid and turn you into a torch.
A flag burner says, "No speech is more pure than my burning a flag in public." If that's so, then certainly the converse is true: no speech is more pure than acting to prevent the burning of that flag in public.
Your own words show that you dpn't understand - "acting"? Sheesh.
Remedial constitution here - you have the right to free speech that does not cause actual harm to another person. And no, hurt feelings don't count. So the flag-burner has the right to burn a flag, and the anti-flag-burner has the right to exclaim loudly what a jerk the flag-burner is, say that he doesn't deserve that freedom, put up a banner decrying the flag-burner, burn the flag-burner in effigy or any number of other modes of speech. He does not have the right to use physical violence to suppress speech just because he doesn't like it.
You are arguing that only side should be recognized and that government should punish anyone who disagrees.
Nonsense. That's just silly. Everyone has the right to disagree with the free speech of the flag-burner. They may respond with speech of their own. They just can't respond with violence - that's not speech in this country. That's just not the way we do things here.
If that is true then why not just pass a law?