Social justice movements strive to maintain a clear message when engaging in acts of protest and exercising free speech. Conveying these messages can range from boycotting a certain product to destroying personal government issued documents. The latter act is commonly associated with protesting policy initiatives that contest the interests of movements. In Irene Ryan v. United States, we observe Ryan’s symbolic speech when she is arrested for burning her National Registration and Identification card (NRI). NRI cards were a result of the Identification and Registration Act which required all those who reside in the United States to present a document that displayed personal information such as citizenship status. Irene Ryan, the executive director …show more content…
of Privacy Rights International, felt that the this policy was a “gross invasion of personal privacy.” Promptly after her speech at a De Moines rally, Ryan burned her NRI card, after encouraging others to follow her lead, and she was arrested for violating Section 3 of the Identification and Registration Act. While “the encouragement of others” to burn their cards section of the act was held unconstitutional, the act of destroying her card is seen as an appropriate government infringement on symbolic speech. This case presents many questions that can determine the limitations of symbolic speech. Although the Court considers this as an acceptable infringement, it is crucial to recognize previous symbolic speech cases and how they strike down the resolution of an appropriate violation. Delving into the controversy, we must first observe a case that parallels similar government infringements on symbolic speech.
United States v. O’Brien offers what is known as the O’Brien test which determines that infringements must be in reach of constitutional power and provide substantial interest of the government. While the Court held that “O’Brien’s conduct (burning the draft card) placed a burden on a legitimate and important government activity” and the government’s interest was considered sufficient to pass the test, government interests evolve as society progresses which can determine expansions on certain kinds of speech …show more content…
(228). In Irene Ryan v. United States, the interest to lessen fraud and abuse of the social welfare system through prohibiting mutilation of NRI cards creates an unnecessary infringement on symbolic speech. Considering that information is already collected by government entities through requiring NRI applications to be filed and which can be easily accessed by government sponsored programs, it is irrational to associate limiting fraud and abuse with the destruction of NRI cards. The issue of fraud and abuse with the social welfare system is already being addressed through the enforcement of the Identification and Registration Act. The destruction of this card presents no burden on the program that is in place. Similar to driver's licenses and social security cards, NRI cards can be replaced if a situation presents the need. For example, if I were to burn by DACA work authorization card, my actions would not disqualify me from being eligible for the program. The largest consequence of my actions is the $500 plastic card I no longer have. Thus, Ryan’s actions does not place “a burden on a legitimate and important government activity.” Burning documents or materials as a sign of protest has become a common act of retaliation for activists. How these acts are protected are best represented in the decision of Texas v. Johnson. While Texas claims the conviction was based on “preventing breaches of peace, and preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and unity,”the Court found that it neither risked the disturbance of peace nor was it in the government’s interest to censor political expression (232). Expression takes two forms in Irene Ryan v. United States: the burning NRI cards and the encouragement of others to burn NRI cards. When the Identification and Registration Act was first introduced, it was meant to “address the problem of illegal immigration, the tremendous financial strain these individuals were having on an already overloaded social welfare system, and the effect of this situation on the national debt and deficit.” However, government interest is cemented through Sections 1 and 2, which state the requirement to file an application for an NRI card and thus the prohibition of burning NRI cards (Section 3) provides an unnecessary redundancy since the government can readily access the information. This unreasonable infringement on symbolic speech correlates with Texas v. Johnson because both Johnson and Ryan are engaging in political expression that does not threaten government interests. As we have reviewed in the two cases above, government interests can carry a significant weight in determining the constitutionality of a law.
The Court finds through the O’Brien test that symbolic speech is protected only if the speech does not undermine the interests the government institutions uphold. We observe a clear example of how the O’Brien test is applied in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and in what way this case can attest to the unconstitutionality of Section 3 in the Identification and Registration Act. In this case, the Court decided that “as long as speech does not disrupt the educational process, government has no authority to proscribe it” (262). This reasoning could be applied to Irene Ryan v. United States as well because the symbolic speech Ryan took part in had no effect on threatening the interest the government has established and the interests the law displays. Therefore, Ryan’s action is protected and Section 3 provides an unlawful “authority to proscribe it” due to the fact that her speech posed no threat to the government
interest. In some of the most extreme cases regarding symbolic speech, we observe that even controversial acts of speech are protected under the First Amendment. Virginia v. Black reinforces that “political speech, of course, is ‘at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect’” (264). This case highlights that expression, cross burning in this situation, cannot be infringed if it threatens to constrain a message of ideology shared among a group. This resolution could be equally applied to Section 3 of the act and is protected by the Preferred Freedoms Doctrine. Under this doctrine, “the judiciary will apply special scrutiny laws that appear to restrict freedom of expression, especially as those laws may relate to the articulation of unpopular views” (208). Irene Ryan v. United States begs the Preferred Freedoms Doctrine to be applied because of the political motivations Section 3 offers. The Identification and Registration Act seeks to not only address issues relating to immigration and the protection of social welfare, but also enforce the adoption of NRI card through controlling symbolic speech. Placing penalties on mutilating NRI cards places constraints on interest groups who may be oppose law, thus infringing symbolic speech that presents a political view. Extending the conversation around controversial acts of speech, Brandenburg v. Ohio offers an important aspect that allows to us further understand the limitations of symbolic speech. This case states that “the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (219). This case presents a significant point that even if speech is considered to share an unfavorable ideology, the KKK’s ideology in this case, that speech is protected. As the Court continues to interpret free speech, we must remind ourselves that we must hold fundamental rights to a higher standard. Even when speech is controversial or projects unpopular opinions, they must be protected thus Ryan’s actions of burning her NRI card, as a symbolic and politically motivated expression, Section 3 must be held unconstitutional due to its infringements on expression. Controversial exercises of speech in public spaces often stirs up aggressive discussions. Despite far fetched opinions being characterized as hurtful or inappropriate, this speech continues to be protected. In Snyder v. Phelps,“given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt” (251). As an action that was “on a matter of public concern,” Ryan’s speech falls under this special protection because her expression was motivated by a view she shared with an interest group. Therefore, Section 3 of the Identification and Registration Act would be an unlawful infringement on her freedom of expression. Condensing the controversy, Irene Ryan v. United States presents multiple similarities with other cases that require us to question what limitations fall under symbolic speech or what is a substantial government interest that would pose a legitimate infringement.
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action.
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the students’ first amendment right was violated. They were not able to express their opinions freely. The first Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Classifying Arguments in the Cas...
Friedman, L. S. (2010). What Is the State of Civil Liberties in the United States?. Civil liberties (pp. 11-49). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2009. Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. .
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Separation of church and state is an issue in the forefront of people’s minds as some fight for their religious freedoms while others fight for their right to not be subjected to the religious beliefs of anybody else. Because public schools are government agencies they must operate under the same guidelines as any other government entity when it comes to religious expression and support, meaning they cannot endorse any specific religion nor can they encourage or require any religious practice. This issue becomes complicated when students exercise their right to free speech by expressing their religious beliefs in a school setting. An examination of First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student submits an essay and drawing of a religious
Brennan wrote in his brief for the majority that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that, "the separation of legitimate from illegitimate speech calls for more sensitive tools than (Georgia) has supplied” (Oyez).
In the film The People v. Larry Flynt, there are several notable court cases that tap into the issue of free speech. The main speech that caught my attention was the Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Throughout this paper I will show an understanding of the issues in this particular case, including the speech issues, arguments that support the speech, arguments that suppress or punish the speech, issues I agree with in the case, and how the case may be different in a different time period. Also, I will give a short review of how I might direct or construct the film different. This was an critical case to protect our 1st Amendment right to free speech and how Larry Flynt helped protect that.
Consequently, the court ensued deliberations regarding whether flag burning constitutes “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment. In an impending battle over the conflict, the Supreme Court justice panel ruled in favor of Johnson, accordingly establishing that flag burning was a constitutional right of speech which could not be violated by any system of government or individual. Furthermore, such a ruling was put into place after an acute justice majority vote of five to four; many responded in outrage, arguing that flag burning is “a completely ridiculous, despicable act”. Despite these audacious statements, others began focusing on the importance of our constitution, highlighting the significance of the flag in relation to our Bill of Rights.“The First Amendment is the most precious part of the Bill of Rights. As disgusting as the ideas expressed by those who burn the flag are, they remain protected by the First Amendment.”. Although one may argue against the burning of the flag, acceptance of an action protected by our constitution is within best interest; this practice is enveloped within the meaning of a national symbol that expresses our freedom, unity, and free will within the United
This is a prime example in the court case United States v. O’Brien. David Paul O’Brien, who was the defendant, was sentenced for burning his registration certificate, or draft card, along with those who shadowed his lead. Various individuals saw this as symbolic speech and used it to impact others in their antiwar views at this time during the Vietnam War era. This burning of the draft card triggered O’Brien to be charged with manipulation of a government issue of a registration certificate. The Supreme Court decided that O’Brien and others who burned their draft cards were to be charged and their ruling was indeed constitutional and did not violate their freedom of speech. This ruling affected all of American and thoroughly outlined the details of symbolic speech and the protections served under the United States
Since the foundation of the United States after a harsh split from Britain, almost 200 years later, an issue that could claim the founding grounds for the country is now being challenged by educators, high-ranking officials, and other countries. Though it is being challenged, many libertarians, democrats, and free-speech thinkers hold the claim that censorship violates our so-called unalienable rights, as it has been proven throughout many court cases. Censorship in the United States is detrimental because it has drastically and negatively altered many significant events.