More handpicked essays just for you.
Is the burning of the flag protected under the 1st amendment
The law of civil disobedience
The law of civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Supreme court ruled that flag desecration was only an act of protesting and it is defended by the First Amendment rights. Also, laws prohibiting the burning of the American flag were made unconstitutional (Martelle). Protesting can be harmful and create problems in the community. About two hundred or more protesters have been charged with more violent crimes than flag burning such as torching cars, broken windows and assaulting police officers. Although some believe flag burning should not be prohibited, other violent crimes from these protests indefinitely need to be stopped (Martelle). This issue of protesting divides the community and provides a conflict between people. Even though free speech proponents see the important symbolism
At the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, Johnson decided to burn an American flag in protest of some policies made by the Reagan administration and some Dallas corporations that he did not agree with. Noone sustained physical injury or was even threatened with physical injury, but many were offended by the jesture made by Johnson. The Texas penal code forbids the desecration of a venerated object.
Johnson and his lawyers were dissatisfied with this decision and made an appeal to the Fifth Texas Supreme Judicial District. This appeal, made on May 8, 1985 would be titled as Texas vs. Johnson. The defense argued that Johnson was prosecuted in violation of the first Amendment, clearly states that no law may take away a person's freedom of speech or expression, and of the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause of the Texas Constitution. Johnson argued that in his opinion, flag burning is part of freedom o...
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. Texas v. Johnson expanded the rights of symbolic speech and freedom of expression under the First Amendment and was presented as a precedence for future cases along with influencing the final decision on the revision of
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...
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.
The following essay will attempt to evaluate the approach taken by Dworkin and Habermas on their views of civil disobedience. The two main pieces of literature referred to will be Dworkin?s paper on 'Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest?' and Habermas's paper on 'Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State.' An outline of both Dworkin's and Habermas's approach will be given , further discussion will then focus on a reflective evaluation of these approaches. Firstly though, it is worth commenting on civil disobedience in a more general context. Most would agree that civil disobedience is a 'vital and protected form of political communication in modern constitutional democracies' and further the 'civil disobedience has a legitimate if informal place in the political culture of the community.' Civil disobedience can basically be broken down into two methods, either intentionally violating the law and thus incurring arrest (persuasive), or using the power of the masses to make prosecution too costly to pursue (non persuasive).
Welch, Michael Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest (Social Problems and Social Issues).
The Constitution is the cornerstone of our freedoms, without it, our freedoms would not be protected. Many individuals think that the Constitution states that we have a right to protest on public and private property; however, this is never said in the First Amendment. (Freivogel) This; however, does not mean that we have no right to protest; it means that protesters may be arrested for expressing views on public property, and if you are private property the owner is able to press charges because of trespassing. The Constitution also states that “the right to protest does not include the right to camp out.” (Freivogel) This means that individuals cannot stay overnight in public or private property in an act of protest. (Freivogel) Individuals may not protest during the night because they will be disturbing the peace. “The government can place restrictions on time and place for protesting.” (Hentoff) A federal, state, or local government may put restrictions on unreasonable times and they may say that individuals are not allowed to protest in a certain area, but this does not mean that they can restrict a certain group from expressi...
Protesting is an efficient way to send a message to a targeted audience. By protesting on a large scale, you can gain attention from bystanders and government. As people start to take notice, they can join your cause, and as more people join you movement, the more government attention it raises towards your motive. Protests against police brutality are happening everywhere in the United States, even in professional sports like football.
True civil disobedience shows respect for the law and accepts the consequences, but unfortunately there are many who hijack a justified movement and use it to satisfy their own selfish motives. In large crowd actions, like blockading roads and airports, or occupying reserved spaces, anarchists take the opportunity to fight law enforcement, vandalize property, and injure others, tarnishing the concept of civil disobedience. Rioters at the demonstrations at the University of Washington, Seattle-Tacoma Airport, and the University of California, Berkeley acted dangerously and gave the opponents of the original movements fuel in their arguments to condemn the movements. Civil disobedience seeks to bring together people for a common good, but can also cause social strife and division when criminal elements and other rioters conceal their behavior within the overall social movement and anonymity of crowds and engage in malicious
Not only does peaceful resistance positively affect a free society, it is the bedrock for its survival. When the Founding Fathers congregated to ratify the Bill of Rights, they considered those ten as unalienable because they were representative of the American people’s values. As questions about which rights are guaranteed constantly circulate, civil disobedience can be a critical reminder to lawmakers about which rights the public refuse to forfeit. In a country of such rich diversity, unanimous agreement is a profound rarity. Unrepresented citizens cannot always rely on their peers to represent the same values, and as the late Howard Zinn once stated: “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from the law; it is essential to it.” Civil disobedience grants a voice to the otherwise voiceless. Ideological minorities can voice their discontent by refusing to conform to policies that breach their moral compasses. Without civil disobedience, those unfavored ideologies would struggle to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
This case is about the I amendment rights that included symbolic speech. In a demonstration, Greg Lee Johnson lit the flag of the U.S. on fire. Many people that were watching was insulted at this, so Johnson was charged and convicted of rudeness of an object that is honored. The case went onto the Supreme Court. When the Supreme court heard about the case, they sided with Johnson and reversed his conviction.
In conclusion, the foundation of our country models the value of protesting peacefully. Current and future generations greatly benefit from their example. We the students must choose to not sit on our hands, but rather take responsibility to speak up. Peaceful resistance to unjust law positively impacts a free