[muawiyah]

The individual who won the case had been charged under the applicable statute which prohibited vandalism of US flags.

You guys who think you know this decision really ought to read the case some time. Ask yourselfs "who owned the flag", "what law was the offending person charged with", etc.

It's not the same case you've concocted in your minds.

[Dimensio]

The individual who won the case had been charged under the applicable statute which prohibited vandalism of US flags.

Were they also charged under an applicable statute prohibiting theft of federally-owned property? If not, why not?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The individual who won the case had been charged under the applicable statute which prohibited vandalism of US flags."

The statute was unconstitutional if it's object was to ban the burning of ANY US flag. The only crime should be if you steal someone else's property and destroy it.