Unfortunately, Trump had significantly and preemptively undercut his own argument fewer than 60 seconds earlier. He did so by calling for one-year prison terms for those who burn the U.S. flag. Trump has previously signaled his disdain for the First Amendment by demanding changes to U.S. defamation law that would mean greater protections for powerful individuals over the public interest in scrutinizing the powerful (a very stupid idea).

Some suggest that Trump was referring to the destruction only of flags that do not belong to those doing the burning. But Trump failed to say as much, thus suggesting he meant an encompassing flag ban. That matters because such a ban would be patently unconstitutional. It was explicitly ruled upon in the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson and upheld in United States v. Eichman. And this Constitutional question is almost certainly closed. The current Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts has shown itself to be reliably ardent in its defense of the First Amendment. As Roberts wrote in the case of Snyder v. Phelps, “As a nation, we have chosen … to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

His hypocrisy aside, to understand why Trump is wrong about flag burning, we need only listen to Justice William Brennan’s opinion for the court (joined by others including Antonin Scalia) in Texas v. Johnson. Brennan observed that “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.” Brennan then ably refuted late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s dissent assertion that flag burning “conveyed nothing that could not have been conveyed and was not conveyed just as forcefully in a dozen different ways.” As Brennan put it, “Not only does [Rehnquist’s] assertion sit uneasily next to the dissent’s quite correct reminder that the flag occupies a unique position in our society, which demonstrates that messages conveyed without use of the flag are not ‘just as forceful’ as those conveyed with it, but it also ignores the fact that, in [a prior case] we ‘rejected summarily’ this very claim.”

The problem with Trump’s pledge to “restore free speech” and simultaneous call to restrict free speech is similarly clear. To accept Trump’s narrative is to adopt an inherently subjective approach to defining what constitutes legitimate speech and what does not. That approach leads only to the speech malaise of Europe, in which those offended are prioritized before those who wish to speak freely, even if in ways many of us would find unpleasant. And once lawmakers and judges have the power to impose consequences on contravening speech, they tend to apply those consequences with an otherwise unjust ferocity.

In turn, social division and the appeal of political extremism become more pronounced as otherwise, decent citizens believe their freedom to petition for a redress of grievances exists only at the whim of the establishment. Robust free speech protections reduce these risks by allowing citizens to vent.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

If conservatives truly believe in ensuring free speech in public and fora such as social media, then we must be willing to tolerate speech that challenges our own most sacred values. But those who want to ban flag burning should realize what they are calling for. What they are ultimately calling for is a new legal precedent that enables future bans on things such as street preachers, activism, which seeks protection for girls’ sports, and other immolation acts such as burning the Koran.

That’s the path of censor-friendly Europe, not that of American exceptionalism.