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.