1 Running head: FLAG BURNING To Burn or Not to Burn: Should Flag Burning be Legal? Ashford Student ENG 122 Dr. St. Clare August 17, 2010 2 FLAG BURNING To Burn or Not to Burn: Should Flag Burning be Legal? Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all Americans in the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a difficult concept to embrace when individuals are faced with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection guaranteed to American citizens becomes even more important. The First Amendment was designed not only to protect the freedom to express ideas and sentiments with which one agrees but also the ideas and sentiments with which one disagrees. It is for precisely this reason that the government should maintain the right of individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the policies of the government through the act of flag burning and not amend the Constitution to make such an act illegal. The first reason why the government should not ban flag burning is that it is a form of expression that is covered by the right to free speech. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Legal Information Institute, 1992a). This amendment guarantees American citizens the right to express their dissatisfaction with the policies of the government without fear of consequences, including arrest, so long as the demonstration does not violate laws. The act of flag burning is a means to express this kind of dissatisfaction. To make a law prohibiting this means of expressing grievances would not only inhibit free speech but take away a means of petitioning the government to address grievances. Another reason why flag burning should be allowed is that the counter-argument that flag burning somehow constitutes treason is groundless. Some may argue that flag burning should not be protected speech, that such an offense should be considered treasonous. They feel that the 3 FLAG BURNING American flag is a symbol of this country that should be maintained and protected. It is true that the flag is a symbol of this nation; it is because of its status as a national symbol that the burning of the flag holds so much power in representing dissatisfaction with the nation’s policies. However, should such an act be considered treason? According to the Constitution, treason is defined as consisting “only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort” (Legal Information Institute, 1992b). Simply by applying this definition of treason to the act of flag burning, unless an amendment were added to the Constitution to redefine treason, flag burning would not qualify as a treasonous act and should t ...

1. 1
Running head: FLAG BURNING
To Burn or Not to Burn:
Should Flag Burning be Legal?
Ashford Student
ENG 122
Dr. St. Clare
August 17, 2010

2. 2
FLAG BURNING
To Burn or Not to Burn:
Should Flag Burning be Legal?
Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all
Americans in the First
Amendment of the Constitution. It is a difficult concept to
embrace when individuals are faced
with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection
guaranteed to American citizens
becomes even more important. The First Amendment was
designed not only to protect the
freedom to express ideas and sentiments with which one agrees
but also the ideas and sentiments
with which one disagrees. It is for precisely this reason that the
government should maintain the
right of individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the
policies of the government through
the act of flag burning and not amend the Constitution to make
such an act illegal.
The first reason why the government should not ban flag
burning is that it is a form of

3. expression that is covered by the right to free speech. The First
Amendment to the US
Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law … abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a
redress of grievances” (Legal Information Institute, 1992a).
This amendment guarantees
American citizens the right to express their dissatisfaction with
the policies of the government
without fear of consequences, including arrest, so long as the
demonstration does not violate
laws. The act of flag burning is a means to express this kind of
dissatisfaction. To make a law
prohibiting this means of expressing grievances would not only
inhibit free speech but take away
a means of petitioning the government to address grievances.
Another reason why flag burning should be allowed is that the
counter-argument that flag
burning somehow constitutes treason is groundless. Some may
argue that flag burning should not
be protected speech, that such an offense should be considered
treasonous. They feel that the

4. 3
FLAG BURNING
American flag is a symbol of this country that should be
maintained and protected. It is true that
the flag is a symbol of this nation; it is because of its status as a
national symbol that the burning
of the flag holds so much power in representing dissatisfaction
with the nation’s policies.
However, should such an act be considered treason? According
to the Constitution, treason is
defined as consisting “only in levying war against them, or in
adhering to their enemies, giving
them aid or comfort” (Legal Information Institute, 1992b).
Simply by applying this definition of
treason to the act of flag burning, unless an amendment were
added to the Constitution to
redefine treason, flag burning would not qualify as a treasonous
act and should therefore remain
a legal means of expressing dissatisfaction with the government.
A final reason why flag burning should not be banned is that it
is an act that allows
marginalized or minority groups a means of expression—and the
right for even those in the

5. minority to be heard is a fundamental American principle.
Freedom of speech is an important
right guaranteed to all Americans. The difficulty in protecting
freedom of speech is not in
protecting the speech with which one agrees but protecting the
speech with which one does not.
This is why it is vital that freedom of speech is protected for all
speech. The dissident voice can
help maintain the balance of power by expressing the sentiments
of the minority. Critics claim
that expressing sentiments in this way is somehow unpatriotic.
This is an unfair statement. It
has been argued by some, including those in Congress, that
protecting the right of Americans to
burn the flag is in fact an act of patriotism (Paul, 2003).
Patriotism is defined as the love of or
devotion to one’s country. What is more patriotic than
protecting the rights of all American
citizens to express their own point of view on the direction of
this nation’s policies in any
peaceful means necessary? It is clear that protecting all forms
of speech is an act of expressing
one’s patriotism no matter how difficult this may be.

6. 4
FLAG BURNING
In conclusion, the right of Americans to express dissent with the
government through the
act of flag burning should be protected. It is a fundamental
right guaranteed by the First
Amendment of the Constitution. Any arguments that such an
act is somehow treasonous or
unpatriotic are not only unfair but untrue. It is for this reason
that Congress should not add an
amendment to the Constitution to outlaw flag burning.

7. 5
FLAG BURNING
References
Legal Information Institute. (1992a). Bill of Rights. Retrieved
from Legal Information Institute
website: http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
Legal Information Institute. (1992b). United States Constitution
Article III. Retrieved from
Legal Information Institute website:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Paul, R. (2003). The Flag Burning Amendment. Retrieved from
Lew Rockwell website:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html
ENG122: Composition II
Toulmin Analysis

8. English 122: Composition II
~ Ancillary Materials ~
Toulmin Analysis
The Toulmin Model was invented by Stephen Toulmin, an
argumentation theorist who adapted and
applied traditional ideas about argument and rhetoric to modern
subject matter in business, law,
literature, and everyday debates and/or disagreements.
Toulmin’s model is constituted of six different
parts: the claim, the evidence, the warrant, the backing, the
rebuttal, and the qualifier. The first three
parts of the analysis model are present in every argument. The
last two are not always present in an
argument, but that fact makes an analysis much easier. For
example, if authors do not acknowledge
and address alternative perspectives in their arguments, they
automatically commit a fallacy (an error
in argument) by stacking evidence in their favor to avoid
casting doubt on their major claims. This
action is both an appeal to ignorance and a type of false
dilemma fallacy. In other words, the author’s
claim seems to be true because it is the only perspective
presented. Instead, an author should

9. effectively rebut other viewpoints with logic and credibility.
The absence of qualifiers falls under the
subjectivist fallacy. No one is correct or incorrect 100% of the
time. There is always an exception to
every rule, opinion, and stance.
Claim: A thesis statement—the major contention, claim, or
point. It should denote exactly what is
being arguing and why. It is the guiding statement for the entire
essay, and it should be defended
throughout the work.
Evidence: The information gathered about a subject. It is
essential that the author includes all major
perspectives on the subject matter in order to prove that she/he
has researched and completed
sound evaluations on every aspect of the topic.
Warrant: The dominantly held assumptions about the overall
subject matter and perspectives
involved. The warrant might be unstated, but it always present.
In other words, values, beliefs, and
principles about certain ideas are the basis of all arguments.
These warrants are culturally held

10. notions of the world that arise from our families, communities,
society, etc.
Backing: The evidence or reasoning used to support the warrant.
Since warrants may differ or are
always in danger of being challenged, support for the warrants
may be required. This backing is
usually in the form of a precedent or logical deduction.
Examples: (a) Because this drug causes
side effects, it must be bad for you; or (b) Because Henny
Penny is a chicken, she must be a bird.
Rebuttal: The alternative perspectives on a subject. However,
the material is presented by the
opponent as only viable in limited constraints and not the most
valid of perspectives.
Qualifier: Qualifiers are important to all arguments because
they protect a claim (thesis) from
becoming an absolute statement. No statement can be correct at
all times and/or under all
circumstances or situations. Examples of qualifiers (italicized)
can be seen in the following thesis
statements: Though some video games may be educational,
most video games prove to be a

11. negative influence on children.