American Flag Stands For Tolerance Analysis

Texas v. Johnson or American Flag Stands for Tolerance differences? Texas's v. Johnson is the courts decision and the American Flag Stands for Tolerance is the editors opinion. In the courts decision they had to accept Gregory Johnson for his beliefs people were very petulantly of Gregory's opinion. The news paper editor, Ronald J. Allen has his own opinion about the flag getting burnt by Gregory Johnson. Ronald J. Allen opinion is that it is wrong to discriminate the American flag and he still thinks we should have freedom. William J. Brennan thinks that the court opinion is right because the first amendment but he always says one mans opinion will not change our nations attitude towards the flag.

This case then was put up to the national level and sent to the United States Supreme Court. There was great public attention because of media. Many groups involved themselves in either trying to support that Texas violated Johnson's first amendment right of freedom of expression, or tried to get a new amendment passed to the constitution stopping the burning of the United States’ flag. The final decision by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1989 was by a 5 – 4 vote, that the Texas court of criminal appeals violated Johnson's first amendment rights by prosecuting him under its law for burning a flag as a means of a peaceful political demonstration. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was "expressive conduct" because it was an attempt to "convey a particularized message." This ruling invalidated flag protection laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

It’s almost the end of 2016 and we still experience discriminative trouble. We are all different but should accept others differences. After reading “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?”, by Etgar Keret, “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion”, by William J. Brennan, and “American Flag Stands for Tolerance”, by Ronald J. Alle, I have found fluent differences in the people explored and the way the people accepted others. In “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion” the people of Texas are having a hard time accepting the fact that Johnson had burned a flag. In “American Flag Stands for Tolerance” the writer states that burning the flag wasn’t illegal and should accept those who express what they believe, even if you don’t agree with them. In the story “What, of This

My So-Called Enemy is arguably the most powerful piece with the theme of tolerance. Palestinian and Israeli girls must learn to bond with one another regardless of their social, political , or religious background . Tolerance is the whole key of the documentary and what resolves the turmoil between the girls as they learn to accept one another through their

Allen, shows a great way of learning how to accept people who are different. Allen does show acceptance. On lines 2-4, Allen states, “...held that a person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies by burning the American Flag.” Allen is saying that anyone is allowed to express their own feelings and opinions. On lines 75-76 Allen also states that “After all, it is in robust debate that we are most true to ourselves.” No matter what everyone is always going to have their own opinions and feelings. Everyone has the right to show discrimination and

Johnson was decided on June 21st of 1989 by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Gregory Lee Johnson's liberties and rights were violated, and that the burning of the U.S. flag was a constitutionally protected form of speech under the First Amendment. The court decided that flag burning was symbolic speech, and protected under the First Amendment. The opinion of the Court came down as a controversial 5–4 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. Texas v. Johnson, was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that revoked prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Johnson’s actions, who were supported by the majority argued, that flag burning was explicitly symbolic speech, political in nature and could be expressed even if those disagreed with him, stated William Brennan. The majority also noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage is not justification for suppressing Johnson’s actions, or symbolic speech. The dissenting opinion, which was written by Justice Stevens, and included Justices Rehnquist, White, Stevens, and O’ Connor, was that the flag's unique status as a symbol of national unity outweighed "symbolic speech" concerns, and thus, the government could lawfully prohibit flag

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

The tones of the Texas vs Johnson and The American Flag Stands For Tolerance have opposite tones because of the context of both documents.

In result to this case, the majority of the court noted that the Texas law discriminated upon the law. They feel that this act might bring up anger in other people and more flag burning. The majority of the court also agreed that Johnson had the right to use that form of symbolic speech because it is protected by the first amendment. They find this act is very offensive, but the society’s outrage alone is not justification for depressing Johnson’s freedom of speech.

Concerning the outcome of Texas v. Johnson, Justice William Brennan delivered the opinion of the court: "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." Flag burning may be offensive to loyal Americans, but it is not threatening enough by itself to justify punishment. Brennan also stated that "we do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." In Johnson’s case, the Supreme Court valued constitutional principles rather than patriotic preferences.

The burning or desecration of the American Flag may fall under both freedoms. 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, 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. As stated in Source D “Justice William Brennan wrote the 5-4 majority decision in holding that the defendant’s act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” 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. Another court case, where the 5-4 majority ruled in favor of the defendant was United States v. Eichman in 1980, a year after the Johnson case. “In the case of United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), the law was struck down by the same five person majority of justices as in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).” [Source D] Multiple times in flag burning cases,

Johnson, was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag. Texas V. Johnson is a very important law in America because it has to do with our country's flag that our veterans have fought for. The Supreme Court made the decision that everyone is entitled to their own opinion for many reasons. It related to the quote because Texas V. Johnson makes sure that no matter how different someone is or someone's actions or feelings towards something is they will always be allowed to their own feelings without fear of someone inhibiting it as long as what they're doing is not life threatening to themselves or others, which is very important because many people have very strong feelings towards our country's flag and this law is here to protect how everyone treats and feels towards the flag because people can be defensive or hurtful since their feelings can be so strong towards our nations flag considering what it means for our country. The Texas V. Johnson is also protected by the first amendment and in lines (1-2) it says “We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the first amendment”. Under our constitution, compulsion is employed as a permissible means for its achievement which is stated in lines (7-12) that officially says “National unity… under our constitution, compulsion as here employed as a permissible means for it's achievement”. The fist

Therefore, the flag is a something that symbolizes racism and support for segregation. I do not think that something like that should be supported within society. Flying the flag is a set-back for the fight against racism. There are many problems with supporting the flag as a symbol to many different culturally diverse groups. The flag represents segregation and that is something that needs to be left in the past. The main moral reason why someone should not fly the confederate flag rests is the fact that it is extremely racist to individuals who battled through the consequences of segregation and racism. It should not be morally acceptable for anyone to support an object that represents so much pain and hurt to individuals of different races. I understand that under the first amendment people have the right to freedom of speech, however, I do believe this flag infringes on the rights of others and has been used a symbol of

The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be a highly controversial issue; on the one side there are those who believe that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation which should be preserved at all costs, while on the other are those who believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and that any legislation designed to prevent this form of expression is contrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Shawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United States Supreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizens believe that the freedom of speech granted to them in the First Amendment means that they can express themselves in any manner they wish as long as their right of

acceptable to have a "narrow, special amendment to protect a special flag from desecration." ("Consequences" 2). Even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison denounced flag burning as a crime (Brady H 2). Others feel that flag desecration disrespects those who lost their lives for our country, stating the flag symbolizes the blood that runs through our country. George Whalen, a soldier, said "the stars and stripes of our nations flag is the symbol of our nation's values... It represents loyalty patriotism and love of our country." ("citizens" 3). Those against flag desecration must remember that the men and women who fought and died for our country were fighting for justice, freedom, and independence, all of which give one the right to desecrate the flag. Yes, the flag represents these freedoms, but the