> If your response to question seven was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to the act of burning a flag. In my defense, t

> If your response to question seven was "False," you chose to interpret the words "speech" and "press" to refer to the act of burning a flag. In my defense, the Supreme Court has already done this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Eichman > United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) was a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violative of free speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty. It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's 1989 decision in Texas v. Johnson, which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag-burning. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/29/20070329-114710-2298r/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/mar/29/20070329-114... > Two state laws that prohibit misuse and desecration of a U.S. flag are unenforceable and unconstitutional, a federal judge has ruled. I'm sure similar arguments could be made about a lot of these, but I've seen this one misinterpreted, so I'm making an example of it.