"Freedom of speech means the right to offend others through spoken words, written words and symbolic acts."
Speech is either oral or written.
Acts are NOT speech.
Speech is either oral or written.
Acts are NOT speech.
Do you consider flag burning a symbolic act? While we're at it, do you consider speaking a symbolic act?
Do you consider flag burning a symbolic act? While we're at it, do you consider speaking a symbolic act?
Acts are NOT speech.
So sign language isn't speech? I think you will have a very difficult time defending this position.
You know, additionally, if you claim acts aren't speech, did you not think it was speech when that poor POW from Vietnam got on TV and blinked, in Morse code, the message "T-O-R-T-U-R-E?" Wasn't that speech? But it was merely an act--no oral or written communication. He was saying, things, of course, but that wasn't his real message. His real message was "torture." Isn't that speech?
Whether it's sign language, Morse code, or even smoke signals, I think you have to concede that anything that conveys a message is speech. And more importantly, flag burning is political speech--and if any speech deserves heightened protection, it's political speech. Yes, reasonable people can debate as to whether Mapplethorpe's photographs are "speech" and whether they convey messages and whether they ought to be subject to First Amendment protection. But flag burning? It is designed to send a political message, and I just can't see how that isn't speech and it shouldn't be protected.
If you can give me a definition of "speech" that includes things like sign language and Morse code (which are both obviously speech) and yet, at the same time, excludes flag burning, I'll listen. But I think that's your first hurdle.