[Modernman]

We have historic precedent already established that says, "yes we can", even with the existing First Amendment un-altered, enforce laws that restrict free speech for the benefit of the citizens. Period.

That's nice. However, barring a Constitutional amendment, the people cannot ban flag-burning as it is covered by the 1st Amendment. Why do you think people keep pushing for a Constitutional amendment on this point? (Oh and by the way, you really should read your own links- the government cannot ban group libel or hate speech)

The point you seem unable to grasp is that the things you listed can be regulated by laws, rather than a Constitutional amendment, because they do not fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment, and never have. It's not the other way around- passing laws does not remove 1st Amendment protection.

[so_real]

Why do you think people keep pushing for a Constitutional amendment on this point?

Personally, I believe "people" keep pushing for a Constitutional amendment because the Supreme Court errantly defined the "act" of flag burning to be equivalent to "speech". Many of us draw the line where "speech" becomes "action". Correcting Supreme Court decisions is a long and lengthy process; just look at Roe vs. Wade. Fixing errant interpretation is a long way off. The Constitutional amendment option has become the "nuclear option" in this arena. You asked my opinion; I've given it. Personally, I'd rather correct the Supreme Court (on yet another issue), rather than amend the Constitution. But, if that is not a possibility, well ...