American Flag And Draft Card Burning

The American flag consists of thirteen horizontal stripes, with seven red stripes alternating among six white. In the upper left corner there is a rectangular blue space that contains fifty white stars. The thirteen stripes symbolize the thirteen original colonies of the United states of America and the stars represent the fifty states of the Union. White is said to symbolize purity and innocence. Red symbolizes strength and courage, and blue symbolizes vigilance, perseverance and justice. The flag in simple words is a piece of cloth that has meaning. The flag stands for everything in our country’s past.

One of the most important cases in the history of the United States, especially for the freedom of American speech and expression, was Texas v. Johnson. This landmark Supreme Court case allows burning the American flag as grounds of symbolic speech. For the Supreme Court, the question was the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? During the Reagan administration, many were upset due to Reagan’s policies, especially his military buildups and his missile reforms. During the Reagan administration, many protests took place, including arm bands to protest military, and sign waving to protest Reagan’s tax cuts that “favored the wealthy”. When the Republican National

The first amendment, as written in the constitution, forbids the abridgement of “speech”, but we have not taken upon the writing that it spreads past spoken and written. Any citizen has the wright to use his or her form of “speech” in his or way of choosing. These forms can be in words, or written down on paper. These ways of speech can also be used in actions, and these actions can express an idea of language as well. When Johnson decided to burn the American flag, he was using his form of speech to get his point across to the new president. When the state came after him, they were in the wrong because of this amendment. Because of this, it was

Is burning the American flag freedoms for speech? The Supreme Court says that burning the American flag is a form of expression that's protected by the first amendment. Flag burning is something that needed to be protected. Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 that stated anyone who knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or templates upon a United States flag can be prosecuted. The Boston Tea Party carried a message and no one expected that act of civil disobedience was protected by free speech. Burning the American Flag is wrong no matter who burns it, it is wrong to do so. You wouldn't want no one burning your flag so I believe it's not okay to burn any flag at all and it shouldn't

The 1960’s was the height of many civil rights and anti-war protests. During this time, student activist became more radical. It began mostly on college campuses when students would organize “teach-ins” to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines. This case changed the history of America because it gave students freedom to voice their opinions. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the question of whether or not the First Amendment’s free speech rights extend to students’ symbolic speech can be analyzed by examining the background, considering the arguments, and reviewing the impact.

II. Flag burning as a symbolic act, symbolic counter speech and the original meaning of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause

Many people believe that the American flag represents the pride they have in their country. Anyone who was to damage the flag is often seen as “un-patriotic” or even as a “terrorist”. That, however, is simply untrue. Burning the American flag is one of the greatest patriotic acts a person can do.

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

For example, when Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in 1984, many Americans were outraged and blatantly critical of Johnson's actions, just as the author expresses his disagreement in the political cartoon (Doc 2). However, after the Supreme Court ruled that this action was symbolic speech, and therefore protected, some Americans began to reshape their thoughts. As written by the Supreme Court, "the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." This change in thinking for Americans has opened a door to new freedoms and more ways to express opinions in society, further protecting our rights to free speech. The Bill of Rights also leaves interpretation of many laws up the states, therefore protecting us from an all powerful national government.

This brought on the Supreme Court striking down all laws banning flag desecration in 1989. Justice Brennan wrote “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable (civilliberty website, n.d) One cannot simply ban or outlaw a person’s right to exercise their ideas publically because it goes against the majority or popular belief. Taking away ones freedom of speech, you then take away the voice of a nation. You don’t have to always agree with the words, ideas or views someone expresses but you must give them the right to say it without repercussions. We recite the pledge of allegiance, not fully understanding what it means. The last section of the pledge states “with liberty and justice for all”. (UsFlag.org, n.d) Which means, the freedom to live, speak and to carry on without fear or injustice. No matter the race, gender or ethnicity George Washington said it best, “if the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”(Washington, n.d line 31 ) This nation was built upon principles that we are all free. Free to live and exercise our rights to speak freely and protest as citizens without fear. The Constitution also allows one to peacefully

John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Echardt all attended the same public school. They decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They were asked by the school to remove the armbands but the kids refused to do so. This resulted in the suspension of all three students. Through their guardians, the scholars sued the school region for infringing the scholar’s right of expression and looked for a directive to keep the school from suspending them. The Tinkers took to court. The Tinkers claimed that they were suspended for essentially expressing their views on the war. They thought this move made by the school

In Walker III v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015), the Supreme Court concerns itself with the constitutionality of a decision by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board (the DMV Board) to reject the specialty license plate designs submitted by SCV and its members, and the Court addresses possible violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendment. Attorney Scott Keller appears for Walker, the petitioner, and attorney Roger George represents the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV), the respondent. Four issues permeate the case: specialty license plates’ relevant form of speech; State control over the content of specialty license plates; specialty license plates as a limited public forum; and, ultimately, the potential violation of both the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “viewpoint neutrality.” In a divisive 5-4 decision, Justice Breyer delivers the Court’s opinion, while Justice Alito, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, dissents, concerned with the Court’s interpretation of government speech and the precedent it sets.

“Old Glory,” otherwise known as the American Flag, has been a huge part of America 's history and a representation of The United States of America. Ever since The American Flag has been around there have been countless debates about whether it should be a crime to burn or deface the flag. Throughout the world there are many places where defacing your country 's symbol is considered a crime and considered disrespectful, and others where it is considered an expression of free speech and one can do so if they please. Most debates revolve around the issues of respect and national pride versus freedom of speech; both sides are very passionate about their stance on the topic.

The United States Supreme Court found Texas’s flag desecration law unconstitutional during the Johnson verses Texas case. During the 1984 Republican National Convention, Johnson took part in a “political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations” (Texas v Johnson). Johnson burned an American flag after he marched through the streets, while other protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or in danger of injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of “…desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute” (Texas v Johnson). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals acquitted the violation because under the First Amendment, flag burning is expressive conduct; therefore, he could not be punished. The court concluded that the State could not criminally restrict flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. Also, “The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even when our flag is involved” (Texas v Johnson). It is unconstitutional to limit our rights simply because someone finds our actions disrespectful. A state may not hold its own view of the flag nor prohibit expressive

“The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States (Corn-Revere).” This quote shows the controversy of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Many people today believe that the freedom to express their opinions is a founding principle that can never be taken away. In order to understand Flag Burning, one must interpret and analyze the Constitution and the First Amendment.