I disagree with the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. I don't think the Supreme Court should have overturned Johnson's conviction. I believe his act was a violation of proper conduct and behavior in the United States. His actions were not not protected under the first amendment because they were not speech but violent actions that could have placed others in jeopardy and could have incited violence. His actions could have started a riot but more importantly what he did desecrated a revered national symbol. The flag is not just another symbol, it is a visible symbol embodying our nation and there for deserves special protection. The American flag represents values, such as liberty and equality that are worth fighting for. Johnson's actions had nothing to do with speech, rather than gross misconduct is his desecration of such an important symbol, there for he should have been convicted and prosecuted to the fullest extent because he had no protection whatsoever under the first amendment.
I agree with Blair. As a result, I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision. They stated that the law was a violation of freedom of speech under the first Amendment. The act of burning the American flag is not justified as an act of political protest because it is not speech, it is merely a violent action. The American flag is not just a flag, it is a symbol that represents the United States as a whole and the unity that is present within it. His offensive actions destructed the symbol of our country. The continuing use of the violent treatment of the American flag will not only make the flag seem less valuable, but it will diminish the meaning behind it as well. With all of that being said, I believe his actions were not protected under the first Amendment of the United States.
While I appreciate that burning the flag is an action not words, it is still protected under the first Amendment. Since the Constitution is at best vague, it seems appropriate to interpret freedom of speech broadly. The freedom of speech enables all Americans to make statements and protest, even when the sentiments expressed are unpopular. In fact, the first amendment is all the more important when the 'speech' is unpopular.
While burning the flag may be considered unpatriotic, it is ultimately a form of protest which does not cause harm to any person. The only time in which the first amendment may be limited is when the words or actions create a 'clear and present danger'. Burning the flag is not such an action.
The flag too is simply a symbol and should not be singled out as worthy of special treatment. This paves the way for the special treatment of other symbols and the restriction of how the flag may be used. It is not in the rights of our government to place such limitations on the people and therefore restrict their rights.
Burning a flag is not a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and therefore, the decision in the Texas v. Johnson case was unjust. The flag is the most important symbol of the United States that represents the "ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem" as stated by Justice John Paul Stevens. Not only does the flag represent the ideas of America, it stands for freedom, religious tolerance, equal opportunity, and good will of people. Burning the flag not only disregards what the flag symbolizes, it disrespects the meaning of the flag as a whole.
The Court decision rejected the meaning and importance of the American Flag, and therefore, was unjust. The flag represents unity; and creating an amendment that allows people to burn the flag is incorrect. The Constitution's Preamble specifcally states, "We the people," and with that statement includes everything the flag symbolizes.
I also disagree with Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson. I do not believe that the Supreme Court had the right to revoke his conviction because it violated the First Amendment. Johnson's act of burning the American flag should not be protected by the First Amendment because it is not an act of speech, but an act of conduct. As stated by Justice Paul Stevens, the flag is more than just a national symbol, it is a "symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations." Therefore, Johnson's act of burning the American flag are proven as unjust. While the flag represents everything the United States stands for, Johnson disrespected the entire country when he decided to burn the flag, and as a result should have been punished fully for his actions.
I agree with Nora in that I do not believe the Supreme Court had to right to revoke Johnson's conviction. While the first amendment protects freedom of speech, flag burning is a form of conduct and, therefore, is not protected by this amendment. Not to mention, flag burning goes again the ideals of the vast majority of American society. Over, "75 percent of those surveyed favored a flag protection amendment," and "forty-nine states have asked Congress to pass a flag protection amendment." The United States flag is not just a flag. As stated by Justice Paul Stevens, it "signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem, as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas." In addition, the amendment against flag burning simply provides Congress with the "power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag." This in no way infringes upon free speech, therefore, does not violate the first amendment. The only purpose of the amendment being passed is to protect the flag which is so highly regarded by our country as a symbol of all it has experienced. It has also been left vague enough to allow for other uses of the flag, and is only intended to "outlaw the most obnoxious acts against the flag."
I disagree with the Court's decision in the Texas v. Johnson case. I agree with Blair's statement that Johnson's actions were not speech but actions that could have harmed others (and, in a way, did harm his country.) He clearly did not think about how his action would affect his fellow citizens. This case shows that even though United States citizens have rights and are protected by the government, they can still easily break the laws of their country without understanding why. The country's flag stands for freedom as well as growth and power as a whole group of peoples throughout the ages. Like Tess said, Johnson's actions destructed the symbol of our country. Like Justice John Paul Stevens said in his decision, "The value of our flag as a symbol cannot be measured." For these reasons, I believe that Johnson's actions were not protected under the 1st Amendment.
I believe that the burning of the flag should indeed be illegal and congress “shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Also, 75% of the people who surveyed favored a flag amendment and 49 states asked congress to pass a flag protection amendment. The simple argument can be made that flag burning is not a form of speech; it is an “act” or “conduct.” No form of “talking” is even literally involved. Therefore, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the first amendment. Also, the flag is THE symbol for America and our freedoms. For example, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “ A country’s flag is a symbol of more than “nationhood and national unity.” It also signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem, as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas.” I completely agree with Stevens. The American flag represents even more than those qualities, it also represents all of the citizens who fight for our country. Therefore, it would be completely disrespectful and unconstitutional to burn an object of such praise. Stevens also says how ideas of “liberty” and “equality” have been a driving force in motivating leaders throughout history. Therefore, he states: “ If those ideas are worth fighting for, and our history demonstrates that they are, it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.” Overall, I completely agree with Stevens. A flag of such symbolism, honor, praise, pride, and representation should never tolerate desecration. Also, I believe that burning of the flag is not a form of “speech.” It is simply a “misconduct” that should have consequences when disobeyed just as other “misconducts.” Even though there is no violence specifically against people, the act of flag burning is something that can lead to more violence.
I disagree with the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson because the burning of the American flag should not be protected under the First Amendment. I agree with the Flag Protection Act and what it stands for. Burning an American flag is not only an abuse of freedom of speech and the ability to protest, it is a betrayal of our country. By burning an American flag, that citizen is saying that they have no respect for what American stands for. If an individual does not respect America than they should not expect to be protected by the laws of the land. The American flag is a symbol of freedom, equal opportunity, religious tolerance and everything that America stands for. This can be summed up by the statement " It cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration"
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Johnson's conviction in Texas v. Johnson. Burning the flag should be protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and I believe that that freedom should be interpreted in a broad sense to include any expression of opinions and beliefs, which, as Pooja mentioned, are not considered a 'clear and present danger'. Some people may argue that flag burning cannot be considered another form of symbolic speech and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment also protects "the right of the people... to petition the Government." If not considered another form of symbolic speech, I believe that flag burning would certainly be considered a way to protest the government.
Whether it is considered symbolic speech or a protest of the government, flag burning is often disputed because of the great symbolic meaning of the flag. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the flag is “a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations.” While this statement is correct in describing what most believe the flag to symbolize, not all people share the same beliefs and should not be expected to emulate or devote themselves to this sentiment. In the majority decision, Justice William Brennan stated, "the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." I completely agree with this statement. Protecting the flag because of the shared sentiment of the majority would be a violation of the First Amendment. With respect to this idea, Justice Brennan stated, “To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do.” Justice Brennan also stated, “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.” I believe that this statement makes an excellent point about the flag’s symbolism. If the flag truly symbolizes freedom and all the good things about our nation, then it should also represent the freedom of speech, and would not do so if rights of the people were violated in its name. Protecting the idea behind the flag by prohibiting its desecration would contradict that very same idea.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that deemed the 1984 flag burning a violation of freedom of speech under the first amendment. First, Johnson's action was not a form of speech, but a form of conduct. Additionally, the courts said that his behavior was considered "expressed conduct" meaning that his actions were done with intention in order to make a point. For example, Johnson was in front of the Dallas City Hall Building at the National Republican Convention when he committed the crime. Therefore, burning the flag was not an accident - he blatantly disrespected our country's values, ideas and symbol. The flag " signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem." Although the bedrock rule was established, the court decisions cannot be based off of moral reasons or public opinion. However, the Supreme Court did realize that the laws we make " should reflect values, we, as Americans, hold." Additionally, Americans are in favor of creating a Flag protection Amendment and " if most Americans value protecting the flag from evil acts of desecration, then those values should be stated constitutionally."
I disagree with the Court's decision in the case of Texas v. Johnson. The American flag is more than just a mere piece of fabric; it represents the values of America. With that importance, it needs to be protected and respected by the people. The act of burning the flag is clearly not a form of speech or a protest; it is aimed to damage the meaning of that symbol. Burning the flag could be interpreted by others as a rebellious act, rather than a speech criticizing the government. By justifying it using the freedom of speech, the Court has ignored the meaning behind the flag. Should Johnson even be protected under the First Amendment? He clearly did not respect his own country when he burned the flag. It means that he also did not wish to obey the Constitution, which he damaged the meaning of. A person who does not respect even his own rights should not be protected by those rights.
I agree with the court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If the amendment were to be passed it would go against the people right to free speech. Many reasons why people oppose this decision is because it is very unpopular. However this is one of the main points of freedom of speech. It is meant to protect unpopular views. Flag burning and other acts of desecration rarely occur. Even if they do they're are other laws that punish the people who commit the act. People may argue that it would cause riots and be dangerous or harmful to people. That is why there is the clear and present danger test. This idea limits speech if it presents a clear and present danger. Therefore the proposed amendment violates the 1st amendment. There are other ways to deal with the matter that do not infringe upon the rights of citizens.
The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson was the correct decision and the majority opinion, articulated by Justic William Brennan, could not have been drafted in more appropriate and necessary language. The burning of the American flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention, or, for that matter, at any other venue, should be considered an act of freedom of speech. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that the national government shall "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Opponents of this decision have argued that burning the American flag cannot be classified as "speech," as it is technically an act rather than a verbal utterance. That idea is a false notion. The act of burning of the flag is clearly an expression and articulation of dissatisfaction on the part of an individual with the government of that country thus it can be sufficiently deemeed a form of speech.
It is, in fact, a form of dissent. More importantly, in the America that protects individual freedoms and a right to rebel against the government and its policies, "dissent is patriotic," as the common expression says. Therefore, burning the flag, as a means of displaying dissent and opposition to the government ought to be protected as a right of Americans. The founding of the United States arose from a political and military revolution against the monarchic government of the time. Such a revolution, designed to protect a government that would respect and protect all points of view, was inspired partly by John Locke's view that "when governments become abusive, it is the right of the people to abolish it." The U.S. is the country it is today because it embraces the idea of rebelling against an oppressive government and if something as simple and truly rare as burning the flag, an act which indeed represents a personal revolt against government, were to be denied, it should raise alarms regarding what other freedoms could also be "abrdiged." Justice William Brennan articulated such views best, stating that "the decision [of Texas v. Johnson to declare flag burning constituonal] is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom that the flag best reflects and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism...is a sign and source of our strength." By protecting the freedom of burning the flag, the American government is protecting the broader, more fundamental freedom of dissenting against the government, which is a principal liberty of American democracy. It is thus fair to say it is undemocratic actually to prohibit flag burning.
Secondly, James Madison in the Federalist Papers, drafted in the aftermath of the Revolution, clearly expressed that protection of freedom of speech in a democratic government was tantamount to protection of unpopular speech and the rights of the minority. Therefore, opponents of Texas v. Johnson pointing to public opinion to make their case and claiming that most Americans would be offended by flag burning are wrongheaded in this approach. The central idea behind the freedom of speech protected in the First Amendment and promoted by Madison is precisely that unpopular speech ought to be protected so as not to allow for a "tyranny of the majority." Those who oppose this decision and seek to pass measures in Congress to overturn it are trying, yet failing, to impose such tyranny.
It is clear that the act of flag burning is, in fact, protected under the First Amendment as an appropriate freedom of speech, that permitting it is consistent with the promotion and embrace of the uniquely American and democratic idea of rebelling against government, and that, ultimately, Texas v. Johnson was correct in its ruling. Nonetheless, flag burning will likely be introduced as a supposedly pressing national crisis yet again in the future at some point by an increasingly desperate Republican Party seeking to play the patriotism card.
I agree with the desiciosn of the court in Texas V Johnson.There was no violation of the first amendment as Johnson was just using his freedom of speech. While this may be the unpopular desicision for most patriotic american Johsnon has every right to burn the flag weather it is just for fun or in a way to speech his displeasure with the country itself. As long as Johnson did not put anybody else in danger then there is no violation. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the flag is “a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations.” Although that is true the flag is more meaningful to some people then it is other and Johnson has every right to do what he wants with the flag. In a democracy you are supposed to be aloud to voice your opinion and not agree with the goverment and flag bruning is thus, if fag burning were not allowed then ti would take away from the true democracy of America
I agree with the court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. Let's keep the argument of the 1st Amendment away for a second. The American flag can be purchased by any individual at many stores around the country. This would make the "American flag" their private property and therefore, under the Fifth Amendment, it gives their flag burning the protection of private property inherent. Coming back to the topic of the first Amendment. Freedom of Speech can be interpreted in many ways. Freedom of speech is not necessarily always something you say but rather something that you do. If i remember correctly, Freedom of Speech is "meant to protect the expression of unpopular views." If people do not agree with the values and meaning of the American flag, they should have the right to show it through flag burning.
17 comments:
I disagree with the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. I don't think the Supreme Court should have overturned Johnson's conviction. I believe his act was a violation of proper conduct and behavior in the United States. His actions were not not protected under the first amendment because they were not speech but violent actions that could have placed others in jeopardy and could have incited violence. His actions could have started a riot but more importantly what he did desecrated a revered national symbol. The flag is not just another symbol, it is a visible symbol embodying our nation and there for deserves special protection. The American flag represents values, such as liberty and equality that are worth fighting for. Johnson's actions had nothing to do with speech, rather than gross misconduct is his desecration of such an important symbol, there for he should have been convicted and prosecuted to the fullest extent because he had no protection whatsoever under the first amendment.
I agree with Blair. As a result, I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision. They stated that the law was a violation of freedom of speech under the first Amendment. The act of burning the American flag is not justified as an act of political protest because it is not speech, it is merely a violent action. The American flag is not just a flag, it is a symbol that represents the United States as a whole and the unity that is present within it. His offensive actions destructed the symbol of our country. The continuing use of the violent treatment of the American flag will not only make the flag seem less valuable, but it will diminish the meaning behind it as well. With all of that being said, I believe his actions were not protected under the first Amendment of the United States.
While I appreciate that burning the flag is an action not words, it is still protected under the first Amendment. Since the Constitution is at best vague, it seems appropriate to interpret freedom of speech broadly. The freedom of speech enables all Americans to make statements and protest, even when the sentiments expressed are unpopular. In fact, the first amendment is all the more important when the 'speech' is unpopular.
While burning the flag may be considered unpatriotic, it is ultimately a form of protest which does not cause harm to any person. The only time in which the first amendment may be limited is when the words or actions create a 'clear and present danger'. Burning the flag is not such an action.
The flag too is simply a symbol and should not be singled out as worthy of special treatment. This paves the way for the special treatment of other symbols and the restriction of how the flag may be used. It is not in the rights of our government to place such limitations on the people and therefore restrict their rights.
Burning a flag is not a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment, and therefore, the decision in the Texas v. Johnson case was unjust. The flag is the most important symbol of the United States that represents the "ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem" as stated by Justice John Paul Stevens. Not only does the flag represent the ideas of America, it stands for freedom, religious tolerance, equal opportunity, and good will of people. Burning the flag not only disregards what the flag symbolizes, it disrespects the meaning of the flag as a whole.
The Court decision rejected the meaning and importance of the American Flag, and therefore, was unjust. The flag represents unity; and creating an amendment that allows people to burn the flag is incorrect. The Constitution's Preamble specifcally states, "We the people," and with that statement includes everything the flag symbolizes.
I also disagree with Supreme Court's ruling in Texas v. Johnson. I do not believe that the Supreme Court had the right to revoke his conviction because it violated the First Amendment. Johnson's act of burning the American flag should not be protected by the First Amendment because it is not an act of speech, but an act of conduct. As stated by Justice Paul Stevens, the flag is more than just a national symbol, it is a "symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations." Therefore, Johnson's act of burning the American flag are proven as unjust. While the flag represents everything the United States stands for, Johnson disrespected the entire country when he decided to burn the flag, and as a result should have been punished fully for his actions.
I agree with Nora in that I do not believe the Supreme Court had to right to revoke Johnson's conviction. While the first amendment protects freedom of speech, flag burning is a form of conduct and, therefore, is not protected by this amendment. Not to mention, flag burning goes again the ideals of the vast majority of American society. Over, "75 percent of those surveyed favored a flag protection amendment," and "forty-nine states have asked Congress to pass a flag protection amendment." The United States flag is not just a flag. As stated by Justice Paul Stevens, it "signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem, as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas."
In addition, the amendment against flag burning simply provides Congress with the "power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag." This in no way infringes upon free speech, therefore, does not violate the first amendment. The only purpose of the amendment being passed is to protect the flag which is so highly regarded by our country as a symbol of all it has experienced. It has also been left vague enough to allow for other uses of the flag, and is only intended to "outlaw the most obnoxious acts against the flag."
I disagree with the Court's decision in the Texas v. Johnson case. I agree with Blair's statement that Johnson's actions were not speech but actions that could have harmed others (and, in a way, did harm his country.) He clearly did not think about how his action would affect his fellow citizens. This case shows that even though United States citizens have rights and are protected by the government, they can still easily break the laws of their country without understanding why. The country's flag stands for freedom as well as growth and power as a whole group of peoples throughout the ages. Like Tess said, Johnson's actions destructed the symbol of our country. Like Justice John Paul Stevens said in his decision, "The value of our flag as a symbol cannot be measured." For these reasons, I believe that Johnson's actions were not protected under the 1st Amendment.
I believe that the burning of the flag should indeed be illegal and congress “shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Also, 75% of the people who surveyed favored a flag amendment and 49 states asked congress to pass a flag protection amendment. The simple argument can be made that flag burning is not a form of speech; it is an “act” or “conduct.” No form of “talking” is even literally involved. Therefore, it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the first amendment. Also, the flag is THE symbol for America and our freedoms. For example, Justice John Paul Stevens said: “ A country’s flag is a symbol of more than “nationhood and national unity.” It also signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem, as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas.” I completely agree with Stevens. The American flag represents even more than those qualities, it also represents all of the citizens who fight for our country. Therefore, it would be completely disrespectful and unconstitutional to burn an object of such praise. Stevens also says how ideas of “liberty” and “equality” have been a driving force in motivating leaders throughout history. Therefore, he states: “ If those ideas are worth fighting for, and our history demonstrates that they are, it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration.” Overall, I completely agree with Stevens. A flag of such symbolism, honor, praise, pride, and representation should never tolerate desecration. Also, I believe that burning of the flag is not a form of “speech.” It is simply a “misconduct” that should have consequences when disobeyed just as other “misconducts.” Even though there is no violence specifically against people, the act of flag burning is something that can lead to more violence.
I disagree with the Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson because the burning of the American flag should not be protected under the First Amendment. I agree with the Flag Protection Act and what it stands for. Burning an American flag is not only an abuse of freedom of speech and the ability to protest, it is a betrayal of our country. By burning an American flag, that citizen is saying that they have no respect for what American stands for. If an individual does not respect America than they should not expect to be protected by the laws of the land. The American flag is a symbol of freedom, equal opportunity, religious tolerance and everything that America stands for. This can be summed up by the statement " It cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration"
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Johnson's conviction in Texas v. Johnson. Burning the flag should be protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and I believe that that freedom should be interpreted in a broad sense to include any expression of opinions and beliefs, which, as Pooja mentioned, are not considered a 'clear and present danger'. Some people may argue that flag burning cannot be considered another form of symbolic speech and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment. However, the First Amendment also protects "the right of the people... to petition the Government." If not considered another form of symbolic speech, I believe that flag burning would certainly be considered a way to protest the government.
Whether it is considered symbolic speech or a protest of the government, flag burning is often disputed because of the great symbolic meaning of the flag. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the flag is “a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations.” While this statement is correct in describing what most believe the flag to symbolize, not all people share the same beliefs and should not be expected to emulate or devote themselves to this sentiment. In the majority decision, Justice William Brennan stated, "the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." I completely agree with this statement. Protecting the flag because of the shared sentiment of the majority would be a violation of the First Amendment. With respect to this idea, Justice Brennan stated, “To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do.” Justice Brennan also stated, “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.” I believe that this statement makes an excellent point about the flag’s symbolism. If the flag truly symbolizes freedom and all the good things about our nation, then it should also represent the freedom of speech, and would not do so if rights of the people were violated in its name. Protecting the idea behind the flag by prohibiting its desecration would contradict that very same idea.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision that deemed the 1984 flag burning a violation of freedom of speech under the first amendment. First, Johnson's action was not a form of speech, but a form of conduct. Additionally, the courts said that his behavior was considered "expressed conduct" meaning that his actions were done with intention in order to make a point. For example, Johnson was in front of the Dallas City Hall Building at the National Republican Convention when he committed the crime. Therefore, burning the flag was not an accident - he blatantly disrespected our country's values, ideas and symbol. The flag " signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem." Although the bedrock rule was established, the court decisions cannot be based off of moral reasons or public opinion. However, the Supreme Court did realize that the laws we make " should reflect values, we, as Americans, hold." Additionally, Americans are in favor of creating a Flag protection Amendment and " if most Americans value protecting the flag from evil acts of desecration, then those values should be stated constitutionally."
I disagree with the Court's decision in the case of Texas v. Johnson. The American flag is more than just a mere piece of fabric; it represents the values of America. With that importance, it needs to be protected and respected by the people. The act of burning the flag is clearly not a form of speech or a protest; it is aimed to damage the meaning of that symbol. Burning the flag could be interpreted by others as a rebellious act, rather than a speech criticizing the government. By justifying it using the freedom of speech, the Court has ignored the meaning behind the flag.
Should Johnson even be protected under the First Amendment? He clearly did not respect his own country when he burned the flag. It means that he also did not wish to obey the Constitution, which he damaged the meaning of. A person who does not respect even his own rights should not be protected by those rights.
I agree with the court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. The first amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If the amendment were to be passed it would go against the people right to free speech. Many reasons why people oppose this decision is because it is very unpopular. However this is one of the main points of freedom of speech. It is meant to protect unpopular views. Flag burning and other acts of desecration rarely occur. Even if they do they're are other laws that punish the people who commit the act. People may argue that it would cause riots and be dangerous or harmful to people. That is why there is the clear and present danger test. This idea limits speech if it presents a clear and present danger. Therefore the proposed amendment violates the 1st amendment. There are other ways to deal with the matter that do not infringe upon the rights of citizens.
The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson was the correct decision and the majority opinion, articulated by Justic William Brennan, could not have been drafted in more appropriate and necessary language. The burning of the American flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention, or, for that matter, at any other venue, should be considered an act of freedom of speech. The First Amendment of the Constitution states that the national government shall "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." Opponents of this decision have argued that burning the American flag cannot be classified as "speech," as it is technically an act rather than a verbal utterance. That idea is a false notion. The act of burning of the flag is clearly an expression and articulation of dissatisfaction on the part of an individual with the government of that country thus it can be sufficiently deemeed a form of speech.
It is, in fact, a form of dissent. More importantly, in the America that protects individual freedoms and a right to rebel against the government and its policies, "dissent is patriotic," as the common expression says. Therefore, burning the flag, as a means of displaying dissent and opposition to the government ought to be protected as a right of Americans. The founding of the United States arose from a political and military revolution against the monarchic government of the time. Such a revolution, designed to protect a government that would respect and protect all points of view, was inspired partly by John Locke's view that "when governments become abusive, it is the right of the people to abolish it." The U.S. is the country it is today because it embraces the idea of rebelling against an oppressive government and if something as simple and truly rare as burning the flag, an act which indeed represents a personal revolt against government, were to be denied, it should raise alarms regarding what other freedoms could also be "abrdiged." Justice William Brennan articulated such views best, stating that "the decision [of Texas v. Johnson to declare flag burning constituonal] is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom that the flag best reflects and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism...is a sign and source of our strength." By protecting the freedom of burning the flag, the American government is protecting the broader, more fundamental freedom of dissenting against the government, which is a principal liberty of American democracy. It is thus fair to say it is undemocratic actually to prohibit flag burning.
Secondly, James Madison in the Federalist Papers, drafted in the aftermath of the Revolution, clearly expressed that protection of freedom of speech in a democratic government was tantamount to protection of unpopular speech and the rights of the minority. Therefore, opponents of Texas v. Johnson pointing to public opinion to make their case and claiming that most Americans would be offended by flag burning are wrongheaded in this approach. The central idea behind the freedom of speech protected in the First Amendment and promoted by Madison is precisely that unpopular speech ought to be protected so as not to allow for a "tyranny of the majority." Those who oppose this decision and seek to pass measures in Congress to overturn it are trying, yet failing, to impose such tyranny.
It is clear that the act of flag burning is, in fact, protected under the First Amendment as an appropriate freedom of speech, that permitting it is consistent with the promotion and embrace of the uniquely American and democratic idea of rebelling against government, and that, ultimately, Texas v. Johnson was correct in its ruling. Nonetheless, flag burning will likely be introduced as a supposedly pressing national crisis yet again in the future at some point by an increasingly desperate Republican Party seeking to play the patriotism card.
I agree with the desiciosn of the court in Texas V Johnson.There was no violation of the first amendment as Johnson was just using his freedom of speech. While this may be the unpopular desicision for most patriotic american Johsnon has every right to burn the flag weather it is just for fun or in a way to speech his displeasure with the country itself. As long as Johnson did not put anybody else in danger then there is no violation. Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the flag is “a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations.” Although that is true the flag is more meaningful to some people then it is other and Johnson has every right to do what he wants with the flag. In a democracy you are supposed to be aloud to voice your opinion and not agree with the goverment and flag bruning is thus, if fag burning were not allowed then ti would take away from the true democracy of America
I agree with the court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. Let's keep the argument of the 1st Amendment away for a second. The American flag can be purchased by any individual at many stores around the country. This would make the "American flag" their private property and therefore, under the Fifth Amendment, it gives their flag burning the protection of private property inherent. Coming back to the topic of the first Amendment. Freedom of Speech can be interpreted in many ways. Freedom of speech is not necessarily always something you say but rather something that you do. If i remember correctly, Freedom of Speech is "meant to protect the expression of unpopular views." If people do not agree with the values and meaning of the American flag, they should have the right to show it through flag burning.
Post a Comment