It’s possible to commit crimes or civil infractions (fraud, for example) through speech without the speech itself being the criminal act.

In the case of flag burning, unless the context is a general ban on burning anything, the content of the speech is what’s being banned, and that content is itself not criminal in any other way.

Speech implies intended communication of a message.

Burning the flag in a box of discarded junk from Grandma's house is intentional, but without message. I could conceive of that being made illegal... but so incredibly rare as to be pointless.

Burning the flag as part of the solemn, prescribed way to burn a flag has intent and message, and is speech. So is burning the flag to protest the US involvement in whatever atrocity the government is currently involved in.

Most US states don't have criminal defamation laws ("...more than a dozen states still maintain criminal libel laws"[1]). They're infrequently used, except[0,1] an abusive tactic by police; most experts seem to think they're unconstitutional, but they haven't (yet) been invalidated on First Amendment grounds.

[0] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-declin... ("U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear First Amendment Challenge to Criminal Defamation Law" (2023))

[1] https://www.thefire.org/cases/frese-v-formella ("Frese v. Formella")

> "Throwing someone in jail for badmouthing a public official is profoundly undemocratic and un-American."

> "But that didn’t stop police from arresting Robert Frese after he insulted them on Facebook. According to the Exeter Police Department in New Hampshire, Frese violated the state’s criminal libel law when he referred to an officer as a “coward” who was “covering up for a dirty cop.” New Hampshire’s law makes it a misdemeanor to say or write anything that you know is false that will expose someone to “public hatred, contempt or ridicule”..."

Not to be too blunt, but the difference between the two seems obvious (of course that doesn't mean you have to agree with the law's treatment of that difference): Libel has the potential (and I think, by definition, the intent) to have concrete harmful consequences, while US-flag-burning is purely expressive - the harm is only emotional (if we assume the burning is done safely, since that's irrelevant to the topic).

Maybe you could argue that it "encourages" further action and should be covered under something similar to hate speech laws, but it doesn't seem specific/actionable enough to make sense - and anyway, that's tangential to the question of the difference between libel and US-flag-burning.

It's a distraction to drown out Trump's involvement in the Epstein human trafficking investigation.

The Epstein thing is the true bait, which I feel Americans are swallowing hook line and sinker.

The real meat of the issue is nationalization of companies, militarization and trying to take over the Federal Reserve.

Honestly, every president of the US has semi-directly killed thousands of people. I feel that whatever exposure he had to Epstein's island pales in comparison to, you know, operating the military industrial complex.

Many people are also surprised that politicians lie and that the ultra rich do abhorrent stuff above the law. Seems like a new trend /s

No no no, the real issue is getting everybody to disagree about what the realest issue is.

It's like picking a bestest friend :) maybe he figuratively has many "best friends"? Saying this as a moderate conservative before I get called a liberal