Didn’t we already settle this debate ages ago? Apparently not. Some folks still believe it is acceptable to use the power of the state to prevent people from burning the American flag.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) reintroduced a constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the American flag, marking the occasion on Flag Day. Daines has previously highlighted this amendment in multiple Congresses, emphasizing the flag’s representation of hope and freedom.

Daines told the Daily Caller in an exclusive interview:

The American flag represents a beacon of hope and freedom. This freedom was built on the sacrifices of the brave men and women who carried its colors into battle to defend the United States of America. We must always protect the sanctity of the American flag.

The proposed legislation has only one article, which reads: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

Daines is not the only Republican who favors such legislation. Former President Donald Trump has previously argued in favor of Congress passing a law that would prohibit the desecration of Old Glory:

It is ashame [sic] that Congress doesn’t do something about the lowlifes that burn the American Flag. It should be stopped, and now!

It is ashame that Congress doesn’t do something about the lowlifes that burn the American Flag. It should be stopped, and now!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2020

During a phone call with governors in 2020, Trump reiterated his argument, urging the governors in a conference call to outlaw the practice in their states:

We have a different court and I think that it’s time that we review that again. Because when I see flags being burned – they wanted to crawl up flag poles in Washington and try and burn flags but we stopped them. They’re weren’t able to do it. They would’ve done it if we didn’t stop them. I think it’s time to relook at that issue, hopefully the Supreme Court will accept that.

He continued: “If you wanted to try to pass a very powerful flag burning statute again – anti-flag burning, I hope you’ll do it because we’ll back you 100% all the way. Okay? I hope some of you do it.”

Interestingly enough, a survey conducted in the same year showed that half of the country agrees with the former president:

A YouGov poll of more than 6,000 US adults finds that 49 percent think it should be illegal to burn or intentionally destroy the flag.

About one-third (34%) of Americans say that it should be legal to burn the flag.

Republicans (77%) are more likely than Independents (50%) and Democrats (35%) to say that it should be illegal to burn the American flag.

The act of burning the American flag has long been a contentious issue, raising questions about free speech, patriotism, and the limits of expression. As the subject resurfaces with Sen. Daines reintroducing a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning, the debate on whether such an action should be outlawed continues to divide opinions.

On one hand, those who support legislation banning flag burning might argue that Old Glory holds profound symbolic value as a representation of the nation, its history, and the sacrifices made by its citizens and members of the military. Outlawing flag burning would ostensibly demonstrate a deep reverence for the flag, preserving its integrity and ensuring that it is not subjected to desecration or disrespectful treatment.

Those in favor of the ban might also contend burning the flag is anti-American and offensive to most other citizens. Prohibiting this behavior would foster national unity by promoting a shared sense of pride and respect for national symbols. Outlawing flag burning could help reinforce a sense of patriotism and bring citizens together under a common banner, promoting national identity and cohesion in a time when division and polarization are rampant throughout American society.

Conversely, opponents of the legislation insist that freedom of speech, even when it involves controversial or offensive expression, is a fundamental pillar of a free society. Outlawing flag burning infringes upon this right and sets a dangerous precedent by limiting individual expression. Protecting unpopular speech is crucial to preserving liberty, even if it includes acts deemed disrespectful to national symbols.

It is also important to note that banning flag burning could easily lead to a dangerous slippery slope where the state starts restricting other forms of expression or dissent. At a time when our government is actively seeking to crack down on certain viewpoints expressed on the internet, it is not hard to imagine how much further we could slide toward tyranny if we empower the state to regulate speech in this way. Moreover, selective prohibition of flag burning could be seen as arbitrary and biased, depending on who interprets what constitutes “disrespectful” treatment.

The reality is that passing legislation allowing the government to send men with guns and badges to arrest someone and throw them into a cage for desecrating a symbol emblazoned on a piece of cloth is not only absurd, but it is also an egregious affront to liberty. Free speech means people have the right to be disrespectful, unpatriotic, and offensive. Depriving someone of their freedom or property for engaging in this behavior is precisely why the First Amendment was created in the first place. Unfortunately, folks like Daines don’t seem to care much for defending free speech.