In Depth with Dan: Answering viewer questions about Trump's executive order banning flag burning

WRAL anchor/reporter Dan Haggerty answered viewer questions about President Donald Trump's executive order banning burning of the American flag.
Posted 9/16/2025, 11:31:00 PM Updated 9/17/2025, 12:00:17 AM

20%.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT'S TIME

TO GET SOME FEEDBACK THAT YOU

SEND IT TO THE IN-DEPTH MAILBAG

OVER THE PAST WEEK AND WANT TO

FOCUS ON ONE TOPIC. THEY GOT

A TON OF RESPONSE. LOT OF YOU

SENDING SOME MESSAGES ABOUT

PRESIDENT TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE

ORDER ON BURNING THE AMERICAN

FLAG. TRAVIS SAID I FIND IT

INTERESTING HOW PEOPLE CONSIDER

FLAG BURNING AS AN ACT OF

FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I THINK IT'S

MORE OF THEM EXPRESSING

FEELINGS THAT THEY CAN'T

REASONABLY ARTICULATE. YOU

MIGHT BE RIGHT THERE. TRAVIS,

BUT THAT COUNTS AS SPEECH.

IT'S NOT JUST THE SPOKEN WORD

KNEELING DURING THE ANTHEM.

THAT'S CONSIDERED SPEECH.

WHEN YOU GIVE MONEY TO A

CANDIDATE THAT IS PROTECTED

SPEECH MUSIC ART THEATER

MARCHING AND HOLDING SIGNS WITH

WORDS ON IT. THAT SPEECH TOO,

EVEN SOMETIMES NOT SPEAKING

IS CONSIDERED SPEECH AND IS

PROTECTED LIKE STUDENTS

REFUSING TO RECITE, FOR

INSTANCE, THE THE PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE, THE COURTS HAVE

DECIDED ON THESE ISSUES.

MANY, MANY TIMES. DANNY SAID

THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG,

THOUGH, WHEN I CAN'T BURN THE

LEAVES IN MY YARD THAT I CAN

BURN MY FLAG THAT I SERVED MY

COUNTRY TO PROTECT AND I CAN

UNDERSTAND THIS POINT,

ESPECIALLY FROM SOMEONE WHO

SERVED IN THIS COUNTRY. BUT

HE'S KIND OF CONFLATING 2

SITUATIONS. THERE YOU SEE

BURNING LEAVES ISN'T ILLEGAL,

BUT IT CAN BE LEGAL IN CERTAIN

NEIGHBORHOODS OR IF THERE'S

SOMETHING LIKE A BURN BAN IN

EFFECT, THINGS LIKE THAT IN

THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL

TO BURN ANYTHING LEAVES FLAGS

OR ANYTHING ELSE. YOU COULD TRY

TO ARGUE FREE SPEECH THERE.

BUT THE COOL THE COURTS HAVE

RULED ON THIS ALREADY. WARD

VERSUS ROCK AGAINST RACISM.

BACK IN 1989 WHEN THE NEW YORK

CITY AREA WANTED PERFORMERS IN

CENTRAL PARK TO KEEP THE VOLUME

DOWN. THE BAND'S, THOUGH,

ARGUED IT WAS THEIR FREEDOM OF

SPEECH TO PLAY AS LOUD AS THEY

WANT. BUT THE COURTS RULED THAT

THE GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE

TIME PLACE AND MANNER OF SPEECH

AS LONG AS THEY LEAVE AMPLE

ALTERNATIVE CHANNELS FOR

EXPRESSION. A LITTLE BIT.

THEY'RE OF COURSE, YES, BUT

THIS IS WHY YOU CAN'T PLAY LOUD

MUSIC AFTER 10:00PM IN SOME

NEIGHBORHOODS WHY YOU STILL

NEED A PERMIT. IF YOU WANT A

LARGE RALLY OR A PARADE AND WHY

CITIES CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE

BURN BANS FOR LEADS IN PLACE.

FREE SPEECH IS ONE THING

STARTING A WILDFIRE IS ANOTHER,

BUT I SHOULD SAY IN THE PLACES

WHERE YOU CAN LEGALLY BURN.

YOU CAN LEGALLY BURN A FLAG OR

ANY OTHER SYMBOL. THAT BRINGS

ME TO CHRISTINE'S EMAIL.

SHE SAID I HAVE NO TOLERANCE

FOR BURNING A FLAG ANYWHERE.

I WAS BORN IN ARGENTINA.

I CAME TO THE U.S. AS AN ADULT

AFTER 5 YEARS YOU APPLY FOR

CITIZENSHIP AND OBTAINED IT

VERY QUICKLY. IF I SEE SOMEONE

BURNING THE U.S. FLAG, I'LL

PROBABLY HIT THAT PERSON.

I WOULD FEEL THE SAME WAY IF

SOMEONE BURNS A FLAG FROM

ANOTHER COUNTRY. NOW, CHRISTINE

IS CLEARLY A PASSIONATE

IMMIGRANT AND THE SYMBOLS.

I MEAN, A LOT TO HER AND HER

EMAIL SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO THE

PRESIDENT'S ORDER. HIS ORDER

SAYS MY ADMINISTRATION WILL

PROSECUTE THOSE WHO INCITE

VIOLENCE OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE

OUR LAWS WILL DESECRATE ING

THIS SYMBOL OF OUR COUNTRY.

THE ORDER TRIES TO STITES

SIDESTEP THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN

THIS WAY, MEETING IN THEORY IF

BURNING A FLAG SPARKS A RIOT

OR CREATES AN IMMEDIATE THREAT

OR VIOLENCE, PROSECUTORS COULD

THEN CHARGE SOMEONE NOT FOR

BURNING THE FLAG ITSELF, BUT

FOR THE VIOLENCE THAT INSIGHTS.

AND AS CHRISTINE SAID, IF SHE

SAW SOMEONE BURNING THE FLAG,

IT WOULD INCITE HER TO

VIOLENCE. SO IT SEEMS LIKE IT

KIND OF MAKES SENSE IN THAT

WAY. BUT IT'S MORE COMPLICATED

THAN THAT. LOOK AT WHAT

HAPPENED TO CHARLIE KIRK.

HE WAS SHOT AND KILLED WHILE

SPEAKING AT AN EVENT IN UTAH.

AUTHORITIES SAY A 22 YEAR-OLD

SUSPECT DISLIKED HIS VIEWS AND

KILLED HIM. 4TH. HE WAS INCITED

APPARENTLY BY KIRK'S OPINIONS.

AND WE DON'T RESPOND TO THAT

HORROR BY OUTLAWING KIRK

SPEECH. HE IS THE VICTIM.

WE PROTECT SPEECH AND THEN WE

PUNISH THE VIOLENCE. THAT'S WHY

INCITEMENT IS SUCH A A NARROW

LANE IN THE LAW. IF SOMEONE

CHOOSES VIOLENCE BECAUSE

THEY'RE OFFENDED. THE ANSWER

ISN'T TO BAN THE SPEECH, THE

FENDED THEM IT'S TO HOLD THE

VIOLENT PERSON ACCOUNTABLE.

KRISTINE ALSO SAID I WOULD FEEL

THE SAME WAY IF SOMEONE BURNS A

FLAG FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY.

AND THIS JUST ADDS ANOTHER

WRINKLE TO THE DISCUSSION

BECAUSE YOU ASK YOURSELF WHERE

DOES IT END? WHAT ABOUT BURNING

PRIDE, FLAGS OR MAGA HATS OR

BLM FLAGS OR FLAGS FOR FALLEN

OFFICERS. WHAT ABOUT RELIGIOUS

SYMBOLS? THOSE ALL INCITE

VIOLENCE IN SOME PEOPLE.

IF THE RULE IS TO OUTLAW

WHATEVER FENCE PEOPLE, WHERE

DOES THAT STOP? THAT'S WHERE

SYSTEM PROTECTS ALL SPEECH.

EVEN THE OFFENSIVE KIND BECAUSE

THE MOMENT YOU START CARVING

OUT EXCEPTIONS IT'S HARD TO

AGREE ON WHERE TO STOP. NOW.

I UNDERSTAND SO MANY OF YOU

FEEL DIFFERENTLY ABOUT THE

AMERICAN FLAG UNDERSTAND WHAT

IT STANDS FOR AND WHY IT FEELS

DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THOSE

OTHER EXAMPLES OF ALSO LAID

OUT, THOUGH, THE COURT'S

ARGUMENTS TO WHY IT'S PROTECTED

SPEECH. YOU CAN FIND ALL THAT

COVERAGE ON OUR WEBSITE.

IF YOU HAVE MORE PLEASE LET ME