Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The first amendment in today's society
Argument of the first amendment
First amendment in modern law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all Americans in 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. The first reason Simply by applying this definition of treason to the act of flag burning, unless an amendment were added to the Constitution to redefine treason, flag burning would not qualify as a treasonous act and should therefore remain a legal means of expressing dissatisfaction with the government. A final reason why flag burning should not be banned is that it is an act that allows marginalized or minority groups a means of expression—and the right for even those in the minority to be heard is a fundamental American principle. Freedom of speech is an important right guaranteed to all Americans. The difficulty in protecting freedom of speech is not in protecting the speech with which one agrees but protecting the speech with which one does not. This is why it is vital that freedom of speech is protected for all speech. The dissident voice can help maintain the balance of power by expressing the sentiments of the minority. Critics claim that expressing sentiments in this way is somehow unpatriotic. This is an unfair statement. It has been argued by some, including those in Congress, that protecting the right of Americans to burn the flag is in fact an act of patriotism (Paul, 2003). Patriotism is defined as the love of
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.
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.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
For those who want to light Old Glory on fire, stomp all over it, or spit on it to make some sort of "statement," I say let them do it. But under one condition: they MUST get permission from three sponsors. First, you need permission of a war veteran. Perhaps a Marine who fought at Iwo Jima? The American flag was raised over Mount Surabachi upon the bodies of thousands of dead buddies. Each night spent on Iwo meant half of everyone you knew would be dead tomorrow, a coin flip away from a bloody end upon a patch of sand your mother couldn't find on a map.
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 United States of America is often known for having more freedom than anywhere else. As Gandhi said, “A ‘no’ uttered from the deepest conviction is better and greater than a ‘yes’ uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.” Freedom of speech is a big part of the American culture and citizens are encouraged to speak their minds and opinions openly. It is such an important aspect of each American individual that it is
One may argue that banning the flag would deny free expression, but hanging the flag also says that racism is acceptable and the pain, suffering and cruelty endured by the African Americans has no importance. The color of a person’s skin should not be an issue, just like how religion and gender should not be an issue. The flag is a silent way of saying that one agrees with racism and the seceding of our country. Consequently, the flag should be banned. The controversy over the Confederate flag has been an issue for many years.
The burning of an American flag is not necessarily anti-American or unpatriotic. Sometimes, the greatness and majesty of the flag is better portrayed in the powerful political and societal statement of destroying it. This act can convey the feeling of the American people that their government is not the body it should be or that it is not doing the will of the people. This is probably one of the most emotional actions they can take to get the government's attention. Some of these protestors may even love the flag as much as those who are for banning flag burning, but the burners want to emphasize the seriousness of their complaint. The act of burning a flag may be the people's way of telling the government that it is co...
The dissenting opinion to the previous idea is that the government's legitimate interest in preserving the symbolic value of the flag is, however, essentially the same that may have motivated a particular act of flag burning. The flag uniquely symbolizes the ideas of liberty, equality, and tolerance -- ideas that Americans have passionately defended and debated throughout our history. The flag embodies the spirit of our national commitment to those ideals. To the world, the flag is our promise that we will continue to strive for these ideals. To us, the flag is a reminder both that the struggle for li...
Pendergast, Tom, Et Al. Constitutional Amendments: From Freedom of Speech to Flag Burning. N.p.: UXL, 2001. Print.
“It isn't against the law to burn a cross or any other religious symbol—yet it would be against the law to burn a flag, if these flag amendment folks have their way” (Levendosky). If you are allowed to buy a cross and go home and burn it why should you be held to a law that is the same as that. Making a flag more than what it should be is what is making the argument such a big deal. “Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in a dissent fifteen years ago, when the Court refused to hold flag burning a crime, wrote that "the true nature of the state's interest in this case is not only one of preserving 'the physical integrity of the flag' but also one of preserving the flag as an important symbol of nationhood and unity. . . . It is the character not the cloth of the flag that the states seek to protect" (Garbus). This quote represents taking this case too far. This case should be held between a couple of people in the government, but they should have a vote that declares what's what. And if people don’t like what happens then you can keep it to
Free speech is a freedom we enjoy in this country and something that is defended on a daily basis. We have to understand that while exercising this
Freedom of speech cannot be considered an absolute freedom, and even society and the legal system recognize the boundaries or general situations where the speech should not be protected. Along with rights comes civil responsib...