Does anyone know what "Flag Burning" has to do with "Freedom of Speech"?  I have read the Bill of Rights and I seemed to have missed it.  I remember George Bush the 1st being very distraught with Republicans for not jumping on board the "save the flag" band wagon.  The conservatives didn't share Bush's enthusiam for this political "tactic", especially after he had just raised taxes and increased spending on more pork-entrenching liberal "vote buying", and Bush then muttered I can't understand what's wrong with them.
    We've got nine Supreme Court Justices (many who are old and possibly senile, well, probably senile) that are paid very, very good salaries deciding if someone can burn their American flag or not.  I believe if you bought it and there is no city ordinance against burning then knock yourself out, but on the other hand why was this even brought to the Supreme Court in the first place?  What the Hell does "Flag Burning" have to do with speech anyway?  Well, they say that flag burning emphasises the statement people want to make.  WELL, SO DOES HOLLERING!  DO WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO HOLLER?  How about bombs?  Now I can tell you that's a statement with some emphasis (i.e. the World Trade Center).
   Here's my point:  Why don't we make an attempt to seperate speech from acts?  It shouldn't be too difficult; let's see.  Ok, one is speech and the other is, of course, an act.  There we go; I knew we could do it. 
      If no one is listening to your "free speech" then perhaps you need to use better rhetoric, find a more receptive audience or reflect on or maybe even (gasp) amend your own views but thinking your problem is needing to put more emphasis on what you're saying is certainly going down the wrong road, besides, where do we draw the line?  The Supreme Court, after "admitting" that flag burning was free speech, should have at the very least added a caveat stating that setting off a nuclear weapon is not "free speech".