More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of speech and political speech
According to the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment protects the right to free speech
According to the U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment protects the right to free speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There were only a few months remaining before the 50th quadrennial presidential election was set to take place. Primary presidential candidates such as Ronald Reagan were gearing up to make their final appearance before decision day; America had its eyes on the 1984 Republican National Convention held in Dallas, Texas. Simultaneously, protesters gathered to express their disagreement with administration policies held by Reagan, who was now running for his second full term. Under these circumstances, an individual by the name of Gregory Lee Johnson expressed his disagreement by means of dramatically burning the American Flag outside of the ongoing Republican National Convention. Consequently, Johnson was charged for violating the Texas state …show more content…
law encompassing protection against the desecration of the national symbol. Accordingly, Johnson appealed his conviction by arguing that the destruction of the flag was “symbolic speech” and coincided with the constitution; the famous case of Texas v. Johnson would go on to become the birthmark of the controversy over our symbolic national image. Based on the evidence, the debasement of the American Flag is an act that promotes the safety of our liberty and expression of argument in support of the constitution that our founding fathers instated decades ago to establish order, and ensure our tranquility. In consequence of the immensely controversial burning of the American flag, the Supreme Court accepted Johnson’s prosecution appeal as established by the Texas government.
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 …show more content…
States. More recently, 2016 president-elect Donald Trump has argued in opposition to the United States constitution, stating that penalties should be issued for any individual who desecrates the United States flag. “Trump would support substantial penalties - including revoking an American’s citizenship for burning the flag, restarting a controversy that has persisted despite decades of settled case law.”; Trump publicized his statement just days after a local flag burning at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. Unfortunately for the president-elect, the Supreme Court has ruled that protecting the flag from destructive acts is unconstitutional and prohibited. In addition, Congress has attempted multiple times to amend the constitution in order to prevent flag burning; all of these efforts failed to pass the two-thirds majority vote required by the senate. As recently as 2006, congressional attempts to end the flag burning epidemic have backfired in a narrow voting margin; evidently, the United States government continues to notion that the amendment is here to stay. As the controversy continued to progress, other influential individuals such as former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia weighed in on the political controversy poising the unity of our country.
Scalia argued that while he may not agree with the destruction of a national symbol so sacred to him, the First Amendment inscribes that the flag is in place to advocate freedom of speech even in the event that the flag is used as that message. Comparatively, United States Senator Mitch McConnell agrees that disregarding the First Amendment should not be the result of an act that is encompassed within our Bill of Rights. "No act of speech is so obnoxious that it merits tampering with our First Amendment. Our Constitution, and our country, is stronger than that. Ultimately, people like that pose little harm to our country. But tinkering with our First Amendment might.". Moreover, McConnell traced the conflicting First Amendment to the birthmark of the United States, referencing how the constitution was put in place in order to establish a stable, tranquil government. “Our Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment because they believed that, even with all the offense that freedom of speech would allow, truth and reason would triumph in the end.”.As referenced in the Preamble of the United States constitution, “securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” sometimes entails allowing actions of which we may not wish to concede
to. In either case, the 1984 Republican National Convention was at its close with America now in disagreement over flag burning as its place within the constitution was now in question; the Supreme Court had its unanticipated verdict radiating throughout the country. In 2016, many individuals ignited protest over the 1984 Supreme Court case ruling in response to a recent local flag burning; political figures such as president-elect Donald Trump publicized their wishes to end the flag burning epidemic by means of amending our constitution to adopt measures of prosecution. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia along with United States Senator Mitch McConnell defended the constitution in opposition to the menacing outrage, stating that the constitution is in place to protect the rights of all as defined by the fathers of our country. Furthermore, the practice of desecrating the American Flag is enveloped within the meaning of the flag itself, expressing our freedom, unity, and free will within the United States even if that free will includes the burning of the flag. As conflicting sides of the waging controversy continue incessantly, the protectors of the United States government make it evident that the First Amendment is to remain as the flag is not just an object, but a symbol of our liberty and opportunity that was instilled by those who gave us the life we have today. “If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter”.
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.
Johnson” case was one for the books. Not only was it one of the most controversial cases of its time, but still is today. Opinions vary on the subject, many agree with the majority of the supreme court, but many are still hesitant to speculate whether the rule in Johnson’s case is legitimate. Was Johnson act unconstitutional? The nation is still baffled at this question, because although it was considered a form of symbolic speech there is no way of knowing if it was meant to be a speech at all. Could it be possible that Johnson formulated this symbolic speech testimony after the fact? With only one man, Johnson, to question the fact, there is no true way of knowing whether or not the act wasn’t just a disgruntled man burning a flag simply because he was getting back at the nation for wronging him. Whatever the fact, the rule still stands and will stand to correct future cases by being a point to look at for
"The words of the first amendment are simple and majestic: 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.' The proposed constitutional amendment would undermine that fundamental liberty."
One key to the first amendment of the United states constitution is the right to free speech. Freedom of speech is what separates America than other countries around the world that forbid freedom of speech rights. Freedom of speech has been in our constitution since the year 1791. When James Madison “the father of the constitution” wrote the bill of rights he saw potential and that it would make the country more freedom filled than other countries. The land of the free is what the United States is nicknamed and it 's because of our rights to express ourselves as freely as we desire.
Group leader’s early estimates of the number of participants proved to be very optimistic. Approximately 5,000 protesters had gathered in Lincoln Park by the Sunday evening before the convention was to begin. The first confrontations between demonstrators and law officials occurred following a peaceful afternoon march. The police, enforcing a ban on overnight camping in the park, randomly attacked protesters, bystanders, and media personnel, chasing them into the city’s Old town District. This pattern was repeated on August 28, following a legal rally in Grant Park, across from the Hilton Hotel, where a number of delegates were staying. The rally was attended by by S.D.S., Yippies, National Mobilization, and Open Convention protesters. In addition to a number of older, nonviolent demonstrators, including disillusioned McCarthy supporters. (Chicago Riots Mar the Democratic National
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
"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
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.
Millions of viewers tuned into the National Broadcasting Company television network for a special broadcast on the 27th of October. Viewers were anticipating Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech. Reagan was acknowledged for his acting in motion pictures and television episodes since 1937, and was now being seen in an unfamiliar role. Reagan emerged in support of the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater. Barry Morris Goldwater was a businessman and five-term United States Senator from Arizona and the Republican Party's nominee for president in the 1964 election. “A Time for Choosing” was effective, because he gave personal examples to capture the audiences’ attention, and gave humor to a tough subject.
How the judicial branch rules in cases relating to the 1st and how they relate that to all the rights of public school students. This includes anything from flag burning to not saluting the flag to practicing religion in school. The main point of this paper is to focus on the fact that schools have a greater ability to restrict speech than government.
George Bush and Ronald Reagan went head to head for the Republican spot. It certainly paid off for Bush in January 1980 when he won the Iowa Republican straw poll. He only defeated Reagan by a small margin. It was looking as if Bush might actually beat Reagan to the nomination. The debate between Bush and Reagan was very upsetting yet disturbing. Bush refused to participate, which led to a problem on the stage. The problem on the stage was that As Reagan attempted to explain his decision, the editor of Nashua Telegraph ordered the sound man to mute Reagan's microphone. With Reagan being filled with rage he responds "I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green."(R.V. ,169) After that unfair debate Reagan swept the South with their votes, and although he lost five more primaries to Bush, including one where he came in third behind John Anderson, the former governor had a lock on the nomination very early in the season. Reagan would always be grateful to the people of Iowa for giving him " the kick in the pants" he needed.(USPE1980, 4)
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.
Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect our most basic rights as citizens of the United States, and although creating the Constitution was an arduous effort, eventually the new Americans came to an agreement over what was included. “The Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — went into effect on Dec. 15, 1791, when the state of Virginia ratified it, giving the bill the majority of ratifying states required to protect citizens from the power of the federal government.” (First Amendment Center). After the first amendment went into effect, all religious minorities were now protected from persecution, and people could freely speak their
“The Constitution leaves in its wake a long legacy, forever shaping the fate of many other countries. Whether those countries are currently in a state favorable to liberty or not, it is undeniable that the U.S. Constitution’s principles have caused people to rethink how to organize their political systems” (Hang). Time has only added value to the Constitution, for every time we reference it in our lives it is a testament of our trust and loyalty in what it states about our rights as individuals and the role the government plays in our lives. When it was written, the Constitution was the law of the land that gave people rights they had previously lived without. Similarly, we live lives of choice and independence because of the same document while other countries limit all the rights we are guaranteed in the Constitution. Simply put, “The Constitution is important because it protects individual freedom, and its fundamental principles govern the United States. The Constitution places the government 's power in the hands of the citizens. It limits the power of the government and establishes a system of checks and balances”