[Texas Federalist]

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.

Fortunately for us, the Supreme Court does not subscribe to your interpretation of First Amendment jurisprudence whereby any law that "benefits" the citizens is constitutional. In reality, the law must promote a governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression, which the Supreme Court has already decided that flag-burning laws do not.

In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court, in an opinion in which Justice Scalia concurred, stated "The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support [Johnson's] conviction [of flag burning] because Johnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression."

Period.

[so_real]

Did I say "any"? Didn't think so. Don't put words in my mouth.

Had the Court not concluded flag burning is "speech", Texas vs. Johnson would have gone another way. Again, the Amendment came first, our interpretation of it continues. The Court concluded the "act" of setting fire to a flag was equivalent to "speech". I disagreed. I also disagreed that Johnson's "conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace". You can see on this thread how high the potential for disturbing the peace is when even considering the "act" of igniting Old Glory. Johnson could have stood on a soapbox all day long and made his political criticisms and I would support his right to do so. I draw the line where "speech" becomes "action". I consider publicly igniting a flammable material to be an "action". The Supreme Court did not feel the same way; it doesn't mean I'm wrong.