>>513970058The EO directly acknowledges this
>Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to “fighting words” is constitutionally protected. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-10 (1989).Which is basically the same limit as any other form of protected free speech.
You can stand on the corner and talk about how we need to round up all the niggers and jews, but it is protected because it isn't likely to actually incite imminent lawless action or intended to provoke a violent reaction. But 1st Amendment free speech protection doesn't extend to protect someone who is actually inciting a riot or lynch mob or something like that.
The Supreme Court in the 1989 case and a few later cases that also struck down congressional attempts to pass a law banning the burning or desecration of the US said that burning or desecrating flags was protected free speech.
With this EO, Trump is saying that there are certain situations in which the burning of the American flag does fall into that category of speech which can be restricted because it likely to incite imminent lawless action or is intended to provoke a violent response.
So basically the next time someone burns a flag at a protest, they will try to prosecute them for it. And the courts will end up deciding whether or not there are situations where burning a flag wouldn't be protected by the 1st Amendment because it incites imminent lawless action.
