The Flag-burning Debate Continues
Nazis captured Jim Rogers. He was routinely beaten and given barely enough food to survive. During the time he spent in a World War II prisoner of war camp, he managed to keep his sanity by scraping together bits and pieces of colored cloth in order to make an American flag. As his fellow prisoners began to die, it was his American flag which provided him with a sense of identity and gave him the inspiration to keep living.
It is no wonder, then, that Jim becomes disturbed when he turns on the news and sees our flag being burned in the streets of foreign nations. What disturbs him even more is when he sees the American flag being burned by Americans in America. In 1989, the Supreme
…show more content…
After reading the First Amendment, it is difficult to see how the act of speaking can be equated with using a cigarette lighter to set a flag on fire. When demonstrators are burning the flag, they are said to be expressing their disapproval toward the government.
But as the observant reader may have noticed, no where in the First Amendment do we find any mention of "expression." Whatever a demonstrator says while burning the flag is speech, but the actual act of burning the flag is expression and, as we have seen, is not necessarily constitutionally protected.
A less common First Amendment defense of the burning the flag is that flag-burning falls under the right of citizens "peaceably to assemble." Although seeing an American flag set on fire would be a source of discomfort for certain on-lookers, burning a flag is far less physically destructive than other protest
activities such as rioting. But the question then arises as to whether or not flag-burning constitutes a peaceful assembling; perhaps the desecration of America's national emblem would incite acts of violence between those who do and do not respect the
In 1989 the United States Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag was a form of symbolic speech and therefore was protected by the United States Constitution. What would happen if they took away the right of freedom of speech? How would people express their feelings and emotions towards the government? Many people would feel as though the government was attacking the basis of one of our nation's strongest beliefs. Many would argue over this situation. Protestors would raise all sorts of questions. What is a free nation that does not allow political disagreement? What is a free nation that will not allow itself to be spoken out against? What is a free nation that wants to punish those who oppose its hypocritical principals?
“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 American Flag is symbol of freedom to those individuals living in the United States. To the soldiers who fight for our freedom, seeing the flag they honor and salute disgraced and disrespected is like a “slap in the face”. Topics discussed throughout this paper are as follows The Star Spangled Banner, American traditions involving the flag, how to fold the flag and what each fold symbolizes, how to properly handle and when/when not to fly the flag as well as, flag burning, a few major case laws about the flag, pending Supreme Court cases regarding the American flag, the reasons for the decisions made, how things have changed over time and some arguments for/against, pros/cons will be discussed so that we all
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
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
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.
In today's society though, people are starting to become extremely confused on what the First Amendment actually covers. For example, burning the American flag in a protest is actually protected by the First Amendment, but many people see burning the
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
Obviously flag burning is a fire hazard that can have a very harmful outcome to the environment and all of its surroundings. Another argument that is stated in the E.M.S.A. says “Many materials in clothing can burn” (E.M.S.A). “Consider
Lately, if you turn on the news, the media headlines are covered with the news of protests. These protests include marches, kneeling, and in some cases, even rioting and fighting. However, one from of protesting stands out the most: burning of the United States flag. Recently, protestors have burned the flag to protest the president and the police. Burning the flag is not something new to this country, however. There are many recorded instances of the American flag being burned as a form of speech; especially during the Vietnam War period. I, on the other hand, strongly believe that burning the American flag is wrong. It much more than just a piece of cloth, it is a scared symbol of our country. In order to stop the mutilation of the symbols of our country, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The amendment that I am proposing will empower Congress to utilize their powers to implement restrictions on mistreatment of iconic American symbols.
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,
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 court also concluded that that the flag-desecration statute was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that were likely to result in a serious disturbance of the peace. The flag burning in this particular case did not threaten such a reaction. There were only a few witnesses to the act that stated that they were upset with the action but were not harmed in any way. There was no breach of peace nor does the record reflect that the situation was potentially explosive. Just because someone was
Flag burners tend to burn the flag because they are angry for many different reasons. One reason they do it is because they express their grief over the violent deaths being suffered in this country. People get offended because they pay attention to the “White on Black crime.” That is when the “Black lives matter” chaos came into place. It is coincidental that the cops happen to be white and the people getting hurt or even killed by the cops are african american. If a cop tells you an order, you must follow it even if you do not agree. If you don’t follow a cops order, that gives the cop the right to give consequences. Another way flag burning can cause violence is that it can cause damage to public places. It can cause damage by the angry people setting objects on fire, fighting one another, tearing up cars and buildings, etc. To stop the rioting, we all need to come together as a nation instead of harming one another and be civil people. Just because everybody see’s different perspectives doesn’t mean we all aren’t the same, we are all human and need to stop killing each other because we believe
Throughout history, Americans have fought hard to gain independence and the freedoms that come with it. However, some choose to test the limitations of those freedoms. For some time, Americans have shown their disgust of the American government by burning flags, and even cutting them up to use as clothing. Although mocking the American government and the flag is disrespectful, revoking the right to do so would be a violation of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those who support the no-flag burning amendment argue that the United States flag is a special case. Because it would undermine the constitution and set a dangerous precedent that will make it easier for others enact restrictive amendments to the