Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag
One of the more relevant maxims today, particularly in the age of social media, is the fact that saying the same thing over and over again does not make it a reality. There are many people—across the political spectrum—who should internalize this.
President Donald Trump is one of them. While speaking at Fort Bragg on Tuesday, he re-upped an idea he has floated many times: "People that burn the American flag should go to jail for one year," he told a crowd of U.S. service members in a now-viral clip. "And we'll see if we can get that done."
They cannot, in fact, get that done.
Trump is, of course, entitled to oppose flag burning on moral grounds. Many understandably find the act tasteless and offensive, as is their right. His administration will not be able, however, to address that using the blunt force of the law, as the highest law of the land already protects it as a form of free expression.
This isn't new. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment," wrote U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in 1989, "it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." That came from his opinion in Texas v. Johnson, in which the Court said it was unconstitutional when Texas used a law criminalizing flag desecration to prosecute Gregory Lee Johnson, who had burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan during the Republican National Convention. Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail. Sound familiar?
Some lawmakers weren't happy with the Court's decision, so Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The law prescribed up to one year of incarceration for anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" any American flag. In trying to dance around the Court's recent ruling, legislators got creative and shifted the focus of the law to preserving its literal physical integrity, which they hoped would be seen as content neutral.
They were unsuccessful. "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering," wrote Brennan the next year in United States v. Eichman. The Court ruled the law unconstitutional.
But what about recent high-profile prosecutions against people who burned the pride flag? There is a reason those cases were allowed to proceed under the Constitution: They concerned defendants who burned flags they stole. Law enforcement should not pursue hate crime enhancements for such offenses—or for any offenses, as prosecutors should be in the business of punishing bad acts, not bad thoughts. But there is a difference under the law between burning a flag you own, and stealing someone's property so you can then destroy it. You have a right to burn any type of flag you want, so long as it belongs to you, whether that be a pride flag, a pirate flag, a Pizza Hut flag, a "NO STEP ON SNEK" flag, an unofficial Antarctica flag (which appropriately looks a bit like a mistake), and an American flag. The list goes on.
The debate here is increasingly fraught in a political climate that has a large appetite for red meat. "I'm with Trump on this one," said Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), an attorney, on X. "Anyone who burns our flag committing a crime should go to jail—double the sentence. Evidently all of Fort Bragg agrees."
His phrasing is clever. Someone who "burns our flag committing a crime" will already be subject to arrest, prosecution, and jail for the crime they committed, because crimes are already illegal. That includes, for example, stealing and destroying an American flag—or any property—that doesn't belong to you. And, as Hawley certainly knows, if he is "with Trump on this one," then he is on board with prosecuting the expressive act itself, as the president has made clear over and over again.
The latter idea is what some U.S. troops were heard cheering during Trump's speech. Their service in defense of freedom is admirable. But it's worth noting that they take oaths to the Constitution, not to the political moment. As Brennan reminded us decades ago, that document also protects the freedoms of people whose expression you may completely despise; any effort to uphold it has to include your ideological opposites, or it doesn't mean a lot. Perhaps ironically, nothing is more emblematic of that ideal than the American flag itself—and your right to do with it what you wish.
The post Why Donald Trump and Josh Hawley Are Wrong To Call for Jailing People Who Burn the American Flag appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth's long week on Capitol Hill
The Big Story Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday closed out his third and final day of hearings on Capitol Hill. © Associated Press The final day was not without its fireworks, with several clashes with lawmakers as he dodged questions on invading Greenland, Ukraine aid, his use of the app Signal, and troop deployment in Los Angeles. Hegseth, in his first appearance before the House Armed Services Committee, was quickly hit with queries from panel Democrats, starting with ranking member Adam Smith (Wash.). Smith pressed the Pentagon chief on whether it is the Defense Department's policy that the U.S. military be prepared to take Greenland or Panama by force. Hegseth would not rule out the possibility of a future military invasion of the Arctic territory and Central American country, suggesting to lawmakers the Pentagon could have such plans and that the U.S. has an interest in protecting both areas from Chinese influence. The Defense Department 'plans for any particular contingency,' he said, adding that 'I think the American people would want the Pentagon to have plans for anything.' The answer caused Smith to scoff, replying: 'I don't think the American people voted for President Trump because they were hoping we would invade Greenland. I'm going to go out on a limb on that one.' Hegseth was later pressed by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), who implored him to confirm that 'it is not your testimony today that there are plans at the Pentagon for taking by force or invading Greenland, correct? Because I sure as hell hope that it is not that.' Hegseth would only repeat that the 'Pentagon has plans for any number of contingencies' and that officials 'look forward to working with Greenland to ensure that it is secured from any potential threats.' Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) took his five minutes to supply Hegseth with the most direct questioning he's yet faced on whether he shared classified information on U.S. attack plans in Yemen via the Signal messaging app. Rep. Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.) then lambasted the Defense secretary as an 'embarrassment,' demanding he resign over a range of issues including the Signal group chat, deploying Marines to Los Angeles amid protests and his views on Russia's war in Ukraine. 'I have called for your resignation. I didn't think you were qualified before your confirmation, and you have done nothing to inspire confidence in your ability to lead competently,' Carbajal said. The hearing caps off Hegseth's long week on Capitol Hill, which began on Tuesday with a relatively quiet House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing. But on Wednesday, Hegseth faced heated questions from the Senate's version of the Appropriations panel, which bombarded Hegseth over the Russia-Ukraine war, the Pentagon's delays in delivering budget information and the administration's focus on Greenland in its Arctic strategy. Read the full report at Welcome to The Hill's Defense & National Security newsletter, I'm Ellen Mitchell — your guides to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect defense and national security now and inthe future: Rain, thunderstorms forecast for DC military parade Rain and thunderstorms are forecast for Saturday in the nation's capital, where a day of festivities and a military parade are scheduled to celebrate the U.S. Army's 250th birthday — which happens to coincide with President Trump's 79th birthday. The daylong festivities in Washington will take place mostly on the National Mall, where a fitness event will be held at 9:30 a.m. and a festival will kick off at 11 a.m. The festival … US troops begin detaining migrants on border defense zone U.S. troops at the southern border started detaining migrants last week as part of the 'Deep South Campaign' to prosecute individuals found trespassing in National Defense Areas (NDAs). President Trump has currently designated the U.S.-Mexico stretches between El Paso to Fort Hancock, Texas, as an NDA alongside the land line marking the country's boundaries in New Mexico. U.S. Army Lt. Col. Chad Campbell said three individuals … Newsom says Trump never discussed sending National Guard: 'Stone cold liar' California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said in a podcast episode Thursday that President Trump did not discuss sending the National Guard to Los Angeles when the two recently spoke to each other before Trump's announcement. 'He lied, he lied. On my mother and dad's grave. I don't mess around, when I say this, he lied. Stone cold liar,' Newsom said on The New York Times's 'The Daily.' Host Michael Barbaro had said the … On Our Radar Upcoming things we're watching on our beat: In Other News Branch out with a different read from The Hill: Senate Democrats calls for Noem to resign Multiple Senate Democrats on Thursday called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign after Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forcibly removed and later handcuffed for interrupting a press conference Noem held in Los Angeles. 'Kristi Noem should resign in disgrace,' Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) … On Tap Tomorrow Events in and around the defense world: What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets: Trending Today Two key stories on The Hill right now: Republicans lay groundwork for 'total tax cliff' at end of Trump's term Congressional Republicans are laying the groundwork for a tax cliff at the end of President Trump's term in office. While the conference is pushing … Read more Trump on 'No Kings' protests during military parade: 'I don't feel like a king' President Trump was asked Thursday to respond to planned counterprotests that will coincide with a military parade in the nation's capital to … Read more Opinions in The Hill Op-eds related to defense & national security submitted to The Hill: You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump vows to bring together India, Pakistan to 'solve anything'
US President Donald Trump insisted Thursday he would bring India and Pakistan to the table together after recent fighting, saying he can "solve anything." US diplomacy last month helped bring a ceasefire that ended four days of fighting between the nuclear-armed adversaries triggered by an attack on civilians in the Indian part of divided Kashmir. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in announcing the ceasefire that the two nations had agreed to "start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site." The statement was welcomed by Pakistan, which has long sought an international role over Kashmir, but India -- which has a warm relationship with the United States -- was more circumspect. Asked whether there remained plans for talks between India and Pakistan a month after the ceasefire, Trump said: "We're going to get those two getting together, you know?" "I told them, India and Pakistan -- they have a longtime rivalry over Kashmir -- I said, I can solve anything. I'll be your arbitrator," he told reporters. India refuses any outside mediation on Kashmir, the scenic Himalayan region which has a Muslim majority but a sizable Hindu minority. "Any India-Pakistan engagement has to be bilateral," Indian foreign ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal told reporters on May 29. "At the same time we are clear that talks and terror don't go together." Gunmen on April 22 massacred 26 tourists in Kashmir, most singled out as Hindus, in the deadliest attack on civilians in decades in the region which has seen a long-running insurgency. India has accused Pakistan of backing the assailants and launched military action in response. Pakistan denies involvement and accuses India of escalating tensions. sct/jgc

USA Today
29 minutes ago
- USA Today
Israel launches strikes against Iran as nuclear program talks falter
Israel launches strikes against Iran as nuclear program talks falter Israel launched a military operation against Iran on the evening of June 12, according to news reports. Iran's state-run news agency reported explosions were heard in Teheran, Iran's capital, according to Reuters. CNN and the New York Times also reported explosions and Israel's defense minister saying that an attack was underway. Israel has been warning for more than a decade it would attack Iran's nuclear program and energy facilities if they reached a stage where they could be weaponized. The two countries are longtime foes. The operation comes as the Trump administration has sought a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program. International watchdogs say Iran has continued to enrich uranium to near-weapons level. President Donald Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff meet with Iranian officials for five round of talks aimed at reaching a deal. 'Constructive' and 'positive': What to know about the rare US-Iran nuclear talks It was not immediately clear if the Pentagon assisted Israel with its operation, though there were no signs it had. Israeli officials and White House spokespeople either declined comment or were not immediately available. There was no immediate diplomatic or military response from Iran. It claims its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes only, a claim that is regarded skeptically in the international community. Ahead of the operation, the U.S. appeared to anticipate that Iran could retaliate on certain American military sites in neighboring Iraq. The State Department issued a travel advisory on June 11 that ordered non-emergency government officials to exit Iraq due to "heightened regional tensions." Trump spoke about Iran at an appearance at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. on June 11, telling reporters Americans were advised to leave the region "because it could be a dangerous place, and we'll see what happens." Trump reiterated the U.S. did not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. "We're not going to allow that," he said. More: Will Israel attack Iran? Trump warns of 'massive conflict' over nuclear program Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has for years argued against a nuclear pact with Iran. Israel and Iran have been sworn enemies since Tehran's 1979 Islamic Revolution. Former President Barack Obama struck a deal with Iran and world powers in 2015 that limited the scope of Iran's uranium enrichment program. Netanyahu objected to that accord, claiming Iran couldn't be trusted to abide by its terms, though the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, said it was working. Trump exited the agreement during his first term. UN nuclear watchdog: Iran in breach of non-proliferation obligations In a late May report, the IAEA estimated Iran had enriched uranium up to 60% purity. That is very close to the 90% enrichment level required to build a nuclear weapon. The IAEA declared June 12 Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations and passed a resolution against the country for the first time in 20 years. Israel and Iran targeted each other with missiles and drones in October 2024 in connection with the killings of the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas − Iranian-backed armed groups. This is a developing story and will be updated.