More handpicked essays just for you.
Does the first amendment protect flag burning
The importance of the freedom of speech
Separation of church and state current issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Does the first amendment protect flag burning
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an amendment banning flag burning would be “…injurious to one of the very freedoms the flag symbolizes: free speech.” They go on to state that such an amendment would allow Congress to engage in thought control, censoring opinions which conflict with other’s opinions. ACLU points out that flag burning is rare. They point to Professor Robert Justin Goldstein who has documented approximately 45 reported cases of flag burning since the American flag was embraced in 1777 up until 1989. The act in of itself according to Goldstein’s documentation is few and far between. According to ACLU, the Supreme Court has ruled that flag burning is symbolic speech, as protected under the First Amendment, multiple times. The following year after the court case of …show more content…
Apel as a way to express her stances. As pointed out by Apel, “The word ‘desecration’ implies that the flag is sacred, and the government (separation of church and state) can't say that something is sacred.” According to Marsh, another issue arises. The government and state governments would have legal room to define “flag” how they choose. She uses the District of Columbia as an example: they describe the US flag in 4 USC Section 3, "... [to] publicly mutilate, deface, defile or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt, either by word or act, upon any such flag, standard, colors, or ensign, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor" (qtd. in Marsh). As Marsh stated, it could be considered “casting contempt” by simply expressing dislike for the colors red, white, and blue. Marsh ends with stating that burning the American flag would not cause concern over national
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals pointed out that the state, under the first amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag due to the current circumstances. The court found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. They concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in...
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
Is the upholding of the American flag as a symbol of the United States more important than the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment? Are there certain freedoms of expression that are not protected under the First Amendment and if so what qualifies as freedom of speech and expression and what does not? The Supreme Court case of Texas v. Johnson proves that the First Amendment and the freedom of speech are not limited to that of spoken and written word, but also extended to symbolic speech as well. Texas v. Johnson is a case in which the interpretation of the First Amendment rights is at the top of the argument. This case discusses the issue of flag burning as a desecration of national unity and that the flag of the United States should be protected under a law.
Stripes and stars forever, right? Well, what exactly does that mean? The American Flag can be seen almost anywhere. From the high-school, to the ball park, and even in our homes, the American flag stands as a symbol of all that is good and true in America. When one thinks of the flag, they usually think of the blood that was shed for this country. It was shed so that we could have liberties, such as, freedom of speech and expression, which fall under the first amendment rights of the Constitution. However, when you think of a burning flag, what comes to mind? One might say it shows disrespect and hatred to a country that has given so much. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, Gregory Lee Johnson was accused of desecrating a sacred object, but, his actions were protected by the First Amendment. Although his actions may have been offensive, he did not utter fighting words. By burning the flag, Johnson did not infringe upon another's natural human rights. He was simply expressing his outrage towards the government, which is within the jurisdiction of the First Amendment.
Much history came within the Texas v. Johnson case. It all started during the 1984 Republican National Convention, this is where Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest what policies Regan was administrating (Brennan 1). A march was occurring throughout the city streets, which Johnson did take part in. Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted him on (Brennan 1). No person was specifically injured during this protest; although, many witnesses were severely offended (Brennan 1). Johnson was convicted of Desecration of a venerated object, which violated the Texas Statue. The state court of appeals affirmed Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and reversed the case stating it was a form of expressive conduct, so it was alright (Brennan 1). In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Johnson’s burning of the flag was protected under his First Amendment rights (Brennan 1). The court also found that although witnesses may have found it offensive, does not...
Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all Americans under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a difficult concept to embrace when individuals are faced with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection guaranteed to American citizens becomes even more important. The First Amendment was designed not only to protect the freedom to express ideas and sentiments with which one agrees, but also the ideas and sentiments with which one disagrees. It is for precisely this reason that the government should maintain the right of individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the policies of the government through the act of flag burning and not amend the Constitution to make such an act illegal.
Can an individual be prosecuted for openly burning the American flag in a political protest? Gregory Johnson did this in a political protest outside Dallas City Hall. He was then tried and convicted of desecrating a venerated object under a Texas law (Penal Code 42.09), which states that "a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates a state or national flag" (317). The question of whether this Texas law is in violation of the First Amendment, which "holds that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (316), was brought before the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989). A divided court ruled 5 to 4 that the Texas law was in violation of the First Amendment. Using the same Constitution, precedents, and legal standards, the Supreme Court justices came to two drastically different positions regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting flag burning. To see how such a division is possible, we are going to compare and contrast both the arguments and the methods of argumentation used by both the majority opinion (written by Associate Justice Brennan) and the dissenting opinion (written by Chief Justice Rehnquist), which critiques the majority opinion.
Your First Amendment rights are extremely close to being violated by none other than the United States Congress. I refer to the Flag Desecration Bill that, if passed, would do irreparable damage to our right to free speech and undermine the very priniciples for which the American flag stands. Fortunately, West Virginians have an ally in Sen. Robert C. Byrd. Sen. Byrd, who previously favored the bill, now fights to protect our rights by stopping the passage of this bill. I applaud his stand and want to reinforce his position. I also encourage you to join Sen. Byrd's campaign to ensure the legacy and supremacy of the greatest law in the land: the United States Constitution.
The Confederate flag was used symbolically during the Civil War. To southerner’s, the flag represented a source of southern pride as well as a way of remembering the fallen Confederates. As the Civil War proceeded, the meaning of the flag began to change. Currently, the flag is being used as a symbol for racism. Due to this change in meaning, controversy over the flag has been exponentially growing. Although many would argue the original meaning behind the flag and that it is a symbol of historical culture that should not be forgotten, the flag should be banned due to its representation of racism and the seceding of the states.
The first and only time I had ever heard of someone burning the flag when I came across an article on Regory Lee Johnson. In 1984, he showed up at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas and burned an American flag in order to show his knowledge of the policies of Reagan administration. At the time, he was convicted of flag desecration, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision by ruling that burning a flag was “expressive conduct within protection of the first Amendment” (Pledging allegiance). The issue of flag desecration is one that been around for a while. There are two sides to the debate: one being that the flag should be protected by law, and one being that it should not because it restricts free speech. There have been times when Congress has tried to pass laws protecting the flag, but Supreme Court as struck those laws down by deeming them as “violating the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and hence unconstitutional” (Wall, 1995). However, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling of the laws being unconstitutional, there are many advocates that are still trying to pass flag protection laws by amending the Constitution to allow it. This cannot be done. The constitution should not be amended to protect the flag because it would be a violation to our first amendment: our right to free speech.
The Star Spangled Banner is a sacred song in the United States of America. It not only is a symbol of the fight that soldiers have had to go through, but also a representation of freedom. When the National Anthem plays out of respect for our country, and those who fought for it, everyone is supposed to stand and remove their hats. Currently in the National Football League (NFL) there is a handful of players, mainly African Americans, that have been taking a knee or raising a fist during the play of our National Anthem. This I believe, is a great sign of disrespect for our country and our veterans. This I believe, is very immature and unnecessary. This I believe, should be put to a stop by the NFL and the players should be ashamed of himself for doing this. I am aware that the players have the right to do this, but there are many reasons why this should not be taking place.
Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the decision because the law was inconsistent with the first amendment to the Constitution. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. Burning American flags and other such actions are not treasonous and should no be treated as so, as long as these actions are done to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The document Declaration of Independence signed July 4, the year 1776 and written by one of the country’s ancestors Thomas Jefferson. It was a time in history that declared independence a manuscript written for this occasion which introduces five separate sections that include the introduction which states it is vital to take action on Britain for the colonies.
The third article I found is called, “What Happens When The Contentious Confederate Flag Debate Comes To A Sleepy Virginia Town.” Jack Jenkins is the author and the site gives a little bit of background as to what he has written and that is has been a reporter with his work appearing in the Huffington Post. The article was written recently and has reliable quotes from the curator of the museum featured in the article. I chose to use this source because it has in depth coverage on both sides of whether or not to take the confederate flag down in a public space. Both sides have good arguments and it was one of the first articles that I found that showed both sides of the argument and was bias.
While immigration for our country is good the ability to become a legal citizen has become insanely hard therefore leading immigrants to illegally cross our border, which negatively impacts our country.