Replies

"What would you call the prosecutable activity? I'm not being snide, I have been over the stuff in my own head. There doesn't seem to be a conclusion to it...or I'm not smart enough to figure it out on my own."

As someone else mentioned, I suppose the issue of property rights probably comes into it.

Burning fabric which is one's own property should be nobody's business but the owner, but in this case we're talking about a symbol which represents a nation, and so burning that particular fabric with that particular configuration of color and pattern acquires political significance.

Is a flag then, as a symbol, the property of a national government by virtue of the particular colors and patterns on it and not the sole property of the owner?

I don't know - it's a strange thing, really.

But if it is the property of a national government, than that government has a duty to protect it's property - if it's the sole private property of a private individual... hmm, the act still acquires political significance and thus can be viewed as an act against the national interest...

It seems to me that there are contributing factors in this situation which are not sufficiently recognized and characterized to say one thing or another decisively>

I think it all comes down to the fact that, despite the fact that a flag is both a physical object which can be owned by a private individual and the fact that it is also a symbol representative of something beyond any one person's ownership and indeed is sort of a collectively owned thing is what makes this thing such a conundrum.

Something new needs to be added to the equation before we can find a conclusion to it, I'm afraid...