How far would you go to stop desecration of the US Flag? Would you risk being arrested? Violence? Jail time?

SSG Ronald Williams
See US vs. Eichman
The Supreme Court held that the government cannot prosecute a person for burning a United States flag, because to do so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Government conceded that flag-burning constitutes expressive conduct and enjoys the First Amendment's full protection. It is clear that the Government's asserted interest in protecting the "physical integrity" of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals, is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content of free expression.

The mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol's physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government's interest is implicated only when a person's treatment of the flag communicates a message to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals of the flag. The precise language of the Act's prohibitions confirms Congress' interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction, since each of the specified terms – with the possible exception of "burns" – unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a focus on those acts likely to damage the flag's symbolic value. This is further supported by the Act's explicit exemption for disposal of "worn or soiled" flags, which the Act protects from prosecution since disposing a worn or soiled flag does not desecrate the flag's symbolic nature. Thus, the Act is struck down as its restriction on expressive conduct cannot "‘be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech,'" Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 320. It must therefore be subjected to "the most exacting scrutiny," id. at 321, which cannot justify its infringement on First Amendment rights. While flag desecration – like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures – is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. pp. 313–319.

If you want to claim First Amendment protection under expressive conduct then in the recovery of the flag I may do the same. SSG Ronald Williams the law stands, great supporting document.

SSG Ronald Williams - Staff; In United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) the Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that the Act of Oct. 28, 1989 (Pub. L. 101-131), 103 Stat. 777, 18 U.S.C. §700 "The Flag Protection Act of 1989", (which criminalized the burning and certain other forms of destruction of the United States flag), violated the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America in that most of the prohibited acts involved disrespectful treatment of the flag, and evidenced a purpose to suppress expression out of concern for its likely communicative impact. - Justices concurring: Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy. - Justices dissenting: Stevens, White, O’Connor, Rehnquist, C.J.

If that act is still in effect then so is the "Comstock Act".

The West Borough Baptist Church members proved how much the first amendment protects. I believe in the first amendment... to any extent... So, I ask you my fellow service members and proud Americans to look at the subject in a different light. Look at it that everytime someone burns a flag or stomps upon it are otherwise dishonors it, you look at it as another testament to your sacrifice and service. The jackass dishonoring the flag doesn't realize they are paying tribute to you... but I do. I know that all serving Americans gave dearly for them to have that right.

Correction Sir .... 18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States states;
Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

They don't teach this in OCS Sir??

Apparently I missed that day at OBC SPC Tony Bucaro. And I know they don't teach it at Basic, AIT or WLC either so let's not go down THAT road. Having just looked it up however:

(d)(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).

No one will ever get prosecuted because SCOTUS has ruled time and again that flag mistreatment is a First Amendment right hence making section (a) of this CODE, not law, essentially worthless and unenforceable. I'm no legal expert but I'm assuming that is why no one in recent months with all this flag stomping has ever been arrested or tried for their idiotic actions.

All that said, emotion may overcome me in such a situation...I do LOVE that flag and have personally fought and bled for that for for which she stands. But she IS tough! Long may she wave.

I should've been more clear. The penalty or fine can't be enforced because it violates free speech which is been held up in the US Supreme Court.

I don't like it but I wish it to be enforced.

Texas v. Johnson

Thanks, Michael. I was unaware of the case law, as unfortunate as that was. It was interesting to read the dissents...too bad the other members of the court didn't see it that way.

This now in light, perhaps my rescuing a flag being desecrated by someone could be considered my form of free expression and could be protected by MY freedom of speech!

Still, I don't know what this country is coming to when individuals feel the need to exercise their freedom of speech by doing something not merely for the purpose of expressing such speech, but solely for the purpose of pissing off and/or hurting others. These people are worthless.