>> therefore cover desecration of a flag stolen from government property, or flag burning in a fire hazard zone on federal property.
The President "faking" chilling protected speech is exactly the same as chilling protected speech.
Prosecuting people who burn the flag for whatever other small crimes may have been related.
Both are absolutely awful. You shouldn't defend that tyrannical ruling and I won't defend this.
That's not a thing.
In your example, the Israeli flag was around someone else's neck, belong to that person, and was yanked on, and the case law establishes that attacking someone who has an Israeli flag can be considered the motivation that makes it a hate crime.
And even if you read the paragraph that states
> Mainen said the ruling was significant because it established case law equating attacks against the Star of David and Israeli flag with antisemitism. Case law is formed by judges writing opinions on individual cases that guide legal interpretations in future cases. Case law differs from legal precedents in that precedents are binding, meaning they are rulings that courts must adhere to, while case law serves as a guidepost.
It still a- does not make it "illegal" and b- does not put it in a context where you decide to buy your own Israeli flag and burn it.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/08/05/finding-that-defendant-...
Burning someone else's American flag would be a crime because it's someone else's flag.
You don't get a first amendment right to burn other people's stuff.