Health Ranger Report: FLAG-BURNING an act of expression that shouldn’t be criminalized, Ron Paul argues

08/30/2025 / By Ramon Tomey

Ron Paul argues that flag-burning is a form of symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment, emphasizing that it should only be penalized if it involves property damage or incites violence – handled locally, not federally.
President Trump’s directive to prosecute flag-burning challenges the Supreme Court’s 1989 Texas v. Johnson ruling, which upheld flag desecration as free speech. Critics warn this sets a dangerous precedent for government overreach.
Even Trump allies and conservative commentators (e.g., Jesse Kelly, Colin Wright) reject the order as unconstitutional, arguing it undermines free speech principles despite personal respect for the flag.
Skeptics fear vague legal language could allow future administrations to weaponize such policies against dissent, echoing historical patterns of speech suppression.
Paul frames the issue as part of a wider erosion of constitutional limits on federal power, warning that allowing censorship of offensive speech today could lead to silencing truth tomorrow.

For former Rep. Ron Paul (R-KY), founder and chairman of the Ron Paul Institute, flag-burning remains an act of expression protected under the First Amendment.

The staunch libertarian and constitutionalist put forward his argument during an interview with the Health Ranger Mike Adams on the “Health Ranger Report.” Paul remarked that flag-burning is fundamentally an act of expression that shouldn’t be criminalized.

“People don’t do that [for any reason] other than calling attention to annoy people [or] antagonize people,” he explained. “hey should be just totally ignored, unless they’ve damaged property or caused a riot or something.”

Paul said flag-burning should not be criminalized at the federal level, as the Constitution grants no such authority to Washington. Instead, any related disturbances should be handled locally, much like vandalism or theft. “If the burning of the flag is related to a riot and organized in such a way, that’s a local matter,” Paul said.

The former congressman’s remarks came amid a recent executive order signed by President Donald Trump targeting flag desecration. The order directs the attorney general to prosecute flag-burning violations and pursue litigation to clarify the scope of free speech protections. (Related: Trump signs executive order mandating jail time for American flag desecration.)

Trump’s edict effectively signaled a challenge to the Supreme Court’s 1989 Texas v. Johnson ruling, which upheld flag-burning as protected symbolic speech. According to Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch engine, “flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment because it is considered symbolic speech, a form of political expression that falls under free speech protections. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot prohibit the desecration of sacred symbols – including the American flag – without violating the fundamental right to dissent, ensuring that even controversial expressions remain shielded from censorship.”

Trump’s flag-burning ban sparks free speech revolt

While Trump frames the order as a defense of national unity and public safety, critics warn it sets a dangerous precedent for government overreach into free expression. Paul is not alone in his sentiment; many conservative commentators rebuked Trump’s order as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech despite their personal reverence for the flag.

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright called the ban “absurd” and “anti–free speech,” while radio host Jesse Kelly provocatively declared that such government coercion might push him to burn a flag in defiance. Even some Trump allies like RedState writer Bonchie criticized the order as political theater, lamenting the erosion of constitutional principles in favor of partisan posturing.

The White House insists the order is narrowly tailored, applying only to flag-burning linked to violence or incitement. Yet skeptics note that the administration’s broad language – urging prosecution “to the fullest extent possible” – leaves ample room for abuse.

Historically, governments have weaponized vague laws to suppress dissent – and critics fear this could be the first step toward further speech restrictions. As Adams pointed out in his discussion with Paul: “Whoever comes next can take that same infrastructure and turn it against the American people, which always seems to happen.”

The deeper concern, as Paul highlighted, is the continued expansion of federal power at the expense of individual liberties. “They’re totally ignoring the Constitution because they’re overstepping,” he warned, drawing parallels to government coercion in education and healthcare.

The flag-burning debate is not just about cloth and fire. It’s about whether the state can dictate the boundaries of protest. If the government can punish offensive speech today, what prevents it from silencing inconvenient truths tomorrow?

Watch the full interview between Ron Paul and the Health Ranger Mike Adams below.

This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.

Health Ranger Report: FLAG-BURNING an act of expression that shouldn’t be criminalized, Ron Paul argues

Trump’s flag-burning ban sparks free speech revolt

More related stories:

RECENT NEWS & ARTICLES