Relationship Between The First Amendment And Freedom Of Speech

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.

“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

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 rights have caused much controversy because it allows people to say, act, or feel how they see fit; for example, hanging of a Confederate flag or displaying a swastika in public view. It is a very hard and intense act; although it is their right to do so. According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the displaying of these symbols is protected under the First Amendment.

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

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible. However, in recent years, the right to free speech is one of legal and moral ambiguity-What separates offensive free speech from dangerous or threatening (and presumably illegal) hate speech? Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, every American citizen should be entitled to the right of free expression, thought, and speech. While free speech, including racial, sexist, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, must protected no matter

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

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,

Though the First Amendment nationally guarantees our right to free expression, the Fourteenth Amendment also champions our cause in the states by means of the due-process clause. The due-process clause states that "no state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (Wilson). Until 1925, it was legal for the states to pass legislation prohibiting such forms of protest as symbolic speech because the Supreme Court had previosly denied that the due-process clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. However, in the case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech and of the press implicated the "fundamental personal rights" protected by the due-process clause, and the states could no longer breach through legislation those freedoms guaranteed to each individual (Wilson). This case established the precedence that state laws involving speech violate the freedom of expression guarantees of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, no matter how offensive or repugnant some forms of expression may be, that expression has strong and definite constitutional protections that cannot be encroached by the national or state governments. To create an amendment to weaken our civil liberties constitutes a means to further destroy the representation of our national symbol - the flag.

Outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, many people protested President Ronald Reagan’s policies. Among the protestors was one man named Gregory Lee Johnson. This man was so upset by the policies of the President that he burned an American flag in protest. By doing this, a statute in Texas was violated. This statute prevented the desecration of an American flag if it could possibly anger other people amongst the protest. Johnson was arrested and charged with this violation. He was later tried in court and convicted, but he made an appeal stating that by burning the flag he was expressing his rights of “symbolic speech” which are protected by the first amendment (uscourts.gov). The definition of symbolic speech is the same as a term called “speech plus”. This is a form of expression in which behavior is used by itself or in coordination with written or spoken

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

The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." The court also stated that, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms," the court explained, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore, that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol when it cannot mandate the status or feeling the symbol purports to represent." The Supreme Court found that the state's first interest of preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was not made. The state had not shown that the flag was in danger of being stripped of its symbolic value, the Texas court also decided that flag's special status was not endangered by Johnson's actions.

The issue brought to attention was whether or not flag burning constitutes symbolic speech. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson and said that flag burning did indeed constitute symbolic speech. The court ruled in favor of Johnson by a slim five to four lead. The majority of the court stated that freedom of speech also protects actions that people may find offensive or disagree with. The court also stated that the Texas law Johnson violated, discriminated upon viewpoint. This is what Justice William Brennan had to say; "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . .

In addition to violating one's rights of freedom of expression, the no-flag burning amendment gives government the power to decide what American actions are and are