The Importance Of Flag Burning

Depicting on whether the flag burning is protected by the First Amendment the answer would be no while reading this particular article and evidence stated. Yes there will continuously be pros and cons of the situation in regards to the flag; because of various individual values. Therefore the court believes the flag is a symbol a representation of its special role to society and political reasoning, there will be some people who do not agree with but none deserve to be punished because of their own personal beliefs. There came a point where “burning the flag in private” would be an okay to do so. It is now clearly outweighed with the simple fact of having the highest courts prohibit public burning of the flag on grounds. They would rather articulate

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.

This means that the U.S. wants to protect the flag more than protecting its people from the law and the First Amendment does not apply to the flag. The flag has more protection from the law than the people of the U.S. do. “In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court, by the closest possible margin of a 5-to-4 vote, held that person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies by burning the American flag.”. This means that the First Amendment is used in court of law because we have the right to speak freely and we are protect from the law, it is stated in The Bill of Rights. “ The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument.”. The people who refuse to accept people for what they stand for are called dissenters. They do not believe in letting people stand for what they think is right, even by burning the flag to get

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

As to whether the first amendment, from the very constitution that was made to protect freedom of expression, should protect flag burning. Flag burning has been a way in which people have been able to symbolize their feelings towards a certain event or topic. This use of symbolism should be protected by the first amendment, because it is a form of expression, which the first amendment protects, and the American people are not affected by this in a way that will harm them.

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.

In 1984 in front of the Dallas City Hall during the Republican National Convention, respondent Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administrations and some Dallas-bound corporations. Johnson proceeded with burning an American flag in protest against the policies, where Reagan sought to stimulate the economy with large tax cuts. Johnson was tried and convicted, under Texas law, of the desecration of a venerated object. The State Court of Appeals affirmed the actions, until the case advanced to the Supreme Court after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the State (consistent with the First Amendment) could not punish Johnson

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.

Burning the United States of America flag should be protected under the First Amendment right. The first reason is because burning the flag does not destroy or damage the system of freedom and the meaning the flag represents. According to article 1, retired General Colin Powell’s letter to Senator Leahy, he states that if it is their own flag there should not be punishments, however, if it is someone else's then it should be a punishable crime. Having the freedom to their own property further enforces the meaning and value the flag stands for in the first amendment right. Moreover, it is their own property and they should have the rights to exercise their first amendment right. Another reason is because the act of expressing one's expression

These controversial discussions of the protection of flag desecration have been around for decades, but have only recently resurfaced. There have been court cases of flag desecration throughout history, the most well-known case being Texas v. Johnson of 1989. In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson exercised his right of freedom of speech by burning an American

According to The Law Dictionary," Furthermore, in a few court cases it has been declared that it is only illegal to burn the US flag if the flag would be stolen (Is Flag Burning Illegal)." Since the law has changed in the 1980s, it should follow the new law that it is legal to burn the American flag.

The burning of the US flag should fall under the protections of the First Amendment, this free speech should be protected. The first reason the burning should be allowed is because burning the piece of fabric does not damage the system of freedom. General Colin Powell, a soldier of thirty-five years, replied to Senator Leahy's letter, declaring his belief that people burning the flag does not damage his and or the country's system of freedom (Article 1). In his opinion, people are free to do whatever they want as long as it is their property, however if the flag belongs to someone else, it should be considered a prosecutable crime. Additionally, the burning of the flag should be allowed because if it was banned, then it would be violating

According to Landmark cases of the U.S Supreme Court, in 1984 a gentleman by the name of Gregory Lee Johnson was charged with desecrating a greatly respected object (the American Flag). His Sentence consisted of one year in prison and a $2,000 fine. Johnson was not happy with this ruling and appealed his case with two further Texas courts. Johnson’s second appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the highest court in Texas that hears criminal cases, overturned his conviction, saying that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances (http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/674/Background_summary__questions_). . Cornell University Law School defines the First Amendment as follows: The First Amendment of the United States Constitution is important for the common good so that all American citizens are able to express him/her in a way that he/she each sees fit and upholds the integrity of each person’s individual personality and individuality. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision in Johnson’s favor benefits the interests of all by protecting the first amendment right. In the case of Texas V. Johnson, I rule in favor of Johnson for the following reasons: Freedom of speech, protecting individual rights from government interference, and protecting individual rights from state interference.

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