Allen concludes his editorial: "With controversy comes debate, enlightenment and renewed commitment. Perhaps, then, we are in the court’s debt for not treating the flag-burning case like the simple case it is. Let the controversy rage. After all, it is in robust debate that we are most true to ourselves." Why is it difficult for scholars, judges, and lawmakers to balance robust speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society? Provide evidence, examples, and/or scenarios.

Read Commentary: American flag stands for tolerance , by Ronald J. Allen

Allen concludes his editorial: "With controversy comes debate, enlightenment and renewed commitment. Perhaps, then, we are in the court’s debt for not treating the flag-burning case like the simple case it is. Let the controversy rage. After all, it is in robust debate that we are most true to ourselves."

Why is it difficult for scholars, judges, and lawmakers to balance robust speech protections with the necessity of maintaining a peaceful society? Provide evidence, examples, and/or scenarios.

Allen states that tolerance is at the center of the debate. While those against the Court´s decision claim that a message can be sent in more peaceful ways, those who support it consider that a different outcome would be a governmental intrusion in political speech and a violation of the 1st amendment. Although Allen clearly states his support of the resolution, he does consider that the debate is necessary to further develop tolerance and a better understanding between the opposing positions.

Explanation:

The author refers to a case of flag burning that had the Supreme Court ruling that people have the right to do such a thing to protest against the government.