Harm can be understood by many individuals in a multitude of ways; however, one theory that would not agree with Donald Trump’s claim concerning the American Flag would be Mill’s “Harm Principle,” as the only harm that constitutes regulation is physical harm when it concerns our rights. Mill states that limitations cannot be placed on one’s freedom of liberty if no injury is created thus (Mill, “On Liberty” 71-75). Being offended by the burning of an American Flag, for example, would not require any form of regulation of this symbolic, since it does not cause physical injury. Mill also supports the acceptance of this symbolic speech, as a form of maximizing social utility and happiness, while lowering government coercion/control. In addition, Feinberg expands upon this utilitarian ideal to include the other forms of harm that fall within the extent of our rights, where he scrutinizes various instances of emotional/psychological harm (e.g., embarrassment, disgust, fear) to make the individual question if the harm …show more content…
Devlin claims that, as society evolves, whether desired to or not, we will also change with society. As societal practices and values begin to change over time, some people and their values will not want to follow the progressive trend but are forced to anyways. If one does not choose to adopt the new societal views, the individuals may not feel comfortable with expressing their views. Consequently, this progression would be seen, from Devlin perspective, as a form of regression, as we are losing our values. As a critique to Mill’s Harm Principle, even if it does not physically harm someone, one is still harmed by the act, since society is built and modified based on the social practices. More explicitly, conservative communitarians would view the acceptance of flag burning as a social practice of society that will lead it to fall apart if it changes the values that it was built
For instance, in the two passages Texas v. Johnson and American Flag Stands for Tolerance, the hardship of Gregory Lee Johnson is explained. He burned an American Flag as a way of expressing his opinion. First Amendment protects the people’s freedom of
In determining whether others would be likely to comprehend the intended message the factual context in which the alleged expressive conduct occurs is paramount. Spence, 418 U.S. at 410; Johnson, 491 U.S. at 397. Other factors that influence whether the viewer is likely to understand the message includes, the timing of the conduct, the political or social conditions surrounding the conduct, and the viewer’s personal knowledge. Spence, 418 U.S. at 410. In Spence, the defendant affixed a peace sign to an American flag, which he hung upside down outside his window to protest the United States invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State killings. Id. The Court held that defendant’s conduct was likely to be understood because the activity was concurrent with the aforementioned events, which made it unlikely “for the great majority of citizens to miss the drift of [defendant’s] point at the time that he made it.” Id. Similarly, in Johnson, the Court held that the defendant’s conviction for burning the American flag in political protest violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Johnson, 491 U.S. at 397. The Court held that defendant’s burning of the flag was expressive conduct covered by
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.
Using a few points from a Derek Bok essay and a short quote from Susan Jacoby, this paragraph will highlight the First Amendment. Bok, a Harvard University President for 20 years, handled a similar situation as the St. Cloud University President. The presentation of two Confederate flags and then a swastika, aggravated some students who found the symbols
The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)
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
“American Flag Stands for Tolerance”, an article based on the Johnson case, focuses on “a person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies”(line2). The author of this article focused on the meaning of freedom. In line 65, the author states, “the flag stands for free expression of ideas...The ultimate irony would have been to punish views expressed by burning the flag that stands for the right to those expressions”, meaning it would be pointless to punish those who petulantly burned the flag as an expression of their thoughts, when they have the freedom to express their
The United States is well-known for its principles of freedom and democracy, which is demonstrated through the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Thus, American citizens can openly discuss political matters; criticize the President and his Cabinet on television, radio talk show or in the newspaper; or publicly protest against the government tax policy. However, Free Speech protection becomes debatable when some American citizens burn the nation’s flag to express their disagreement to the government. The act of burning the American Flag should be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause because the act is a symbolic expression that communicates an individual’s idea or opinion about his nation; and that
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
Mill claimed that there must be unconditional rejection of paternalism by the state, only invalidated to prevent persons from selling themselves into slavery. Reinforcing his case Mill argued that paternalistic intervention is unlikely to work because an individual is acutely more aware of his or her own needs than the state is. Additionally, he argued that it is improbable compulsion would work. This can also be taken into account in the form of liberty. Mill alleges that an autonomous life has more value than a life of dependency, since one cannot be forced to be autonomous paternalism has a damaging effect on an individual. As a contemporarily relevant issue, Devlin indirectly delivers his rebuttal to paternalism by embodying a stance on homosexuality. He defends societies right to protect its own existence by vetoing behavior that threatens its sustainability, since homosexuality is detrimental to society that union has a right to prohibit it. This is consistent with Devlin's definition of "tangible harm", described as a harm that instigates a diminution of the physical strength of society. When practiced in trivial quantities these activities can be harmless, however as its participants
It should be considered safer to allow a few protestors to burn or disrespect the flag, than to allow the government to repress our birth rights by banning desecration of the flag. Deemed offensive by many citizens, and a form of symbolic speech by others, the constitutionality of flag desecration has been in question since the late 1800s. Desecration of the United States flag is constitutional, as a form of symbolic speech and protected under the First Amendment, even though many citizens do find it offensive.
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
The ‘father of motivation,’ once said, “we spend a big hunk of our lifetimes contemplating what we can’t have, what we don’t want and what’s missing in our lives. What we have to learn is to put our attention and focus on contemplating what it is we would like to attract, and not on what is missing.” -- Dr. Wayne Dyer.
Big data plays a vital role in healthcare organizations which helps to predict the disease of the patient. As the world’s population is increasing and the models of treatment delivery are changing rapidly, the datasets of the patient also keeps on increasing. In order to maintain these large number of patient’s medical records, big data helps to maintain these records which reduces the cost. The specific information is extracted from the data rich environment and produce the information about the history of the disease and how it can be cured. It is done by using the decision support system implementation for health care with the use of software that aids in the process of decision-making in order to ensure the correct diagnosis of any illness
Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which