Free Speech or Flag Protection? There Can’t Be Both.

1380 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The first amendment analysis

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. In Dianne Feinstein’s article, “Flag Amendment: Flag Needs Protection,” she composed an argument as to why the flag needs protection from desecration. Feinstein’s main point of her article is that the Constitution needs to be amended to protect the flag from desecration. Though Dianne Feinstein gives a compelling argument as to why the flag needs protection, her reasons are dubious and should be dismissed... ... middle of paper ... ...stein suggests and advocates for, then that would be a violation of our first amendment. That in itself is unconstitutional and cannot be done. It is important to understand this because if a constitutional amendment is passed, our free speech would be restricted. So, if after reading this, you feel as if your first amendment is in danger of being violated, then contact Diane Feinstein. Tell her how you do not agree with her advocating of the Flag Protection Amendment. Make your voice be heard, and if she does not change her position, then do not vote for her at the upcoming election. Let her know that you do not agree with her stance on flag desecration. Or, if you are still unsure about whether or not your first amendment is being violated, I urge you to do the research on it, and determine for yourself whether or not our first amendment is being violated.

Show More
Related

  • Russell Feingold: A Patriot Against the USA Patriot Act

    881 Words  | 2 Pages

    Feingold’s position as the only senator voicing opposition to the Patriot Act did not come without controversy. Despite all difficulties, Feingold never questioned his choice, and in fact declared that it was, “probably one of the best things [he’d] ever done.” Feingold acknowledged that he agreed with much of the Patriot act, however saw that certain provisions, “trampled on constitutional rights.” He declared that, as an elected representative, he took an oath to the Constitution that, “wasn’t an oath of convenience,” and displayed unyielding devotion to his fight to def...

    Read More

  • We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect the American Flag

    487 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Gregory Lee Johnson Case Study

    894 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Supreme Court, 490 U.S. 397 (1989), Justice Brennan, held that: the defendant 's act of burning the American flag during a demonstration march was considered expressive conduct and was within the protection of the First Amendment, and the State could not justify the prosecution of the defendant based on the interest to preserve the American flag as a symbol of

    Read More

  • Texas Vs Johnson Case

    1237 Words  | 3 Pages

    After ruling the case in Johnson’s favor, it made it difficult to make a law banning the act of flag burning. Laws would be suggested and one would make it to the supreme court. The law would make flag burning a national offense punishable by law. Unfortunately the same majority decision as in the Texas v. Johnson case would arise as a five-to-four majority agreed once again that the law would abridge the right to freedom of speech. Seeing as the same judges presided over the case, the same defense was used to justify their ruling on the law. It was unconstitutional to abridge speech and by their ruling in Texas v. Johnson, the majority still viewed flag burning as a form of symbolic speech. Not only did the ruling in Texas v. Johnson hinder immediate lawmaking against flag burning, but it also divided a nation for a time. Johnson burned the flag, so he says, as an act against the Reagan administration. If this was so as he claimed that divided the nation, not only against him but against the supreme court. You have the protestors during the time who agreed with Johnson, the patriots against Johnson, and those left confused about what was right and wrong. No one side was right, yet no one side was wrong in their eyes. Johnson’s act was crude and even to those who agreed with his right to freedom of speech, they didn’t view his act as unpunishable. The case made the nation doubt itself and its

    Read More

  • Flag-Burning is No Crime

    1153 Words  | 3 Pages

    "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."

    Read More

  • The American Flag Pros And Cons

    580 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the First Amendment it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Although some argued that the right to burn the American flag is fundamental to the First Amendment

    Read More

  • Texas v. Johnson Argumentative

    691 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Is Flag Burning protected under the First Amendment?

    1567 Words  | 4 Pages

    Is Flag Burning protected under the First Amendment? & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; There is a proposed amendment to make flag burning illegal. Congress tried to pass the Flag Protection Act of 1989, but the act failed because it is seen as a form of public protection.  There have been other attempts to pass legislation to protect the American flag, but none of the attempts have failed so far. & nbsp; Flag burning is very controversial because people have different definitions of what “freedom of speech” means and what our flag stands for. This essay explores these definitions from the proponent’s viewpoint for a law protecting the flag and the opponents viewpoint against such a law. The most debated question being asked at this time is:  is flag burning protected under the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech? It all depends on how a person defines the flag and interprets the First Amendment. & nbsp;

    Read More

  • Why Flag Burning Should Be Banned

    674 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Is Flag Burning Protected by the First Amendment?

    2205 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On The Confederate Flag

    730 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Essay On Flag Desecration

    1373 Words  | 3 Pages

    This ruling can and will stand. This is because to rule any differently will violate the constitution and suppress free speech. Without the right to express one’s political views like this America would be no different than other countries who oppress their citizens, forbidding them to speak against the government. For this reason it is critical that acts such as flag desecration is allowed under the constitution.

    Read More

  • Flag Burning

    1062 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • 'Protecting Freedom Of Expression On The Campus' By Derek Bok

    1024 Words  | 3 Pages

    "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

    Read More

  • Flag Burning and the First Amendment

    2111 Words  | 5 Pages

    Though the Senate expects to vote on this amendment before the 105th Congress adjourns this fall, this is not the first time such a bill has been introduced to Congress. Nonetheless, this is the closest that it has ever come to actually passing through both Houses. The Citizens Flag Alliance recorded that the House passed the flag-protection resolution by a vote of 310-144 on June 12, 1997 (internet). It was then sent to the Senate in February for a vote. Is there a possibility such a bill could pass in the Senate? According to Daniel S. Webster, President of the Citizens Flag Alliance, as many as 64 Senators have already committed to voting "yes" for the amendment (internet). The Constitution states that only 67 votes are needed to propose the amendment to the state legislatures. If 38 state legislatures approve the proposed amendment, it will then ratify the Constitution (Wilson). According to the Citizens Flag Alliance, 49 states have already passed the resolution (internet). With such a close margin, those Senators who oppose the legislation need o...

    Read More

More about Free Speech or Flag Protection? There Can’t Be Both.

Open Document