Yet another flag-burning case, an opinion in Lawson v. Hill by the 7th Circuit. Ruling: the mere existance of an anti-flag-burning statute on the books does not create sufficient risk of arrest or legal action against the plaintiff to create a cause of action for damages, absent an actual attempt by the government to prosecute her under that law.



The prosecutor had refused to proceed because it is axiomatic that laws banning flag burning are unconstitutional restrictions on free speech under the first amendment: the "U.S. Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment forbids punishing people who desecrate the American flag (although it does not forbid punishing the theft of an American flag by someone who means to burn or otherwise deface it or the burning of it in circumstances that would create a safety

hazard) in order to make a political statement . . . United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974)(per curiam)."



But one cannot draft a flag burning statute without focusing on the political statement behind the burning, since technically the correct way to dispose of a flag is by burning it.



It has always annoyed me that every election year certain politicians trot out this type of legislation, knowing full well it's unconstitutional but hoping it will snag the flag-waver vote anyway. They presume your average voter won't know the difference, and they can just bask in the rhetoric because it sounds good. I find that highly condescending.