I agree with the court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. Forbidding flag burning is a direct violation of the First Amendment; it in no way presents a clear and present danger, and therefore cannot be limited. Public disapproval of flag burning is not a reason to outlaw it, especially since flag burning and other acts of desecration occur "fewer than ten times per year since 1990" according to the fact sheet. Because of the rarity of flag burning incidents, I feel like Congress should be focusing on other, much more pressing issues.
The United States is a nation built upon the idea of freedom and the power of the people. Forbidding people to demonstrate their ideas about the government or America just because they are negative is a step away from the Constitutional ideals and toward totalitarian ideals, a point also referenced in the fact sheet. Americans are given the right to free speech, but also the right to assemble, and in many cases flag burning occurs during a demonstration. Outlawing flag burning also violates this right.
I also agree with Justice William Brennan's statement "Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Burning the flag is exercising your right to freedom of speech, and the Government was right in Texas V. Johnson in not taking that right away despite the public opinion.
I disagree with the court’s decision of the Texas v. Johnson case. Deeming this act of desecration an act of freedom of speech passes the boundaries of what our four fathers would claim to be constitutional. The 1st Amendment has its boundaries which limits true freedom of speech. Burning the American flag goes against the standards of society and therefore goes against the 1st Amendment The consequence of allowing flag burning to be a sign of free speech, will lead people to resort to more radical behavior until the government acts upon them. One justice argued, “The flag 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.” The desecration of the American flag by George Johnson in front of a city hall is a sign of ignorance to the United States government. The Clear and Present Danger doctrine, which came about in 1919 during Schneck v. United States, will argue against the supporters of the ruling of the Texas v. Johnson case. The idea of the Clear and Present Danger doctrine came about because the 1st Amendment often clashed with the government’s interest in maintaining order and morale. Burning the American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall during the Republican National Convention clearly goes against the maintenance of order in society. The Supreme Court overturning Johnson’s conviction goes against 75% of the American population. The Supreme Court is to decide its rulings based on public opinion, to an extent, but this goes against the majority of Americans along with the 49 states who favor a flag protection amendment. According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “The flag is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations.” The symbol of American liberties being desecrated should not be tolerated by the Supreme Court’s, and therefore the courts made a mistake in overturning Johnson’s conviction in 1989.
I agree with the court's decision in the Texas v. Johnson case. Prohibiting flag burning is taking away people's right to free speech which is a clearly cut right in the First Amendment. The courts stated in 1990 "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." Although I myself may not agree with the idea of burning the American flag as a way of getting a point across it is unconstitutional to take this right away. The article also stated that if the amendment to allow congress to prohibit desecration of the American flag was passed "it would destroy our right to protest and criticize the government...if passed, it would be the first time in American history that a citizen could be arrested for illegally destroying a piece of property (a flag) that that citizen could purchase legally from any number of stores across the country." Although the government is trying to prohibit an action that may not be of good taste they are also trying to take away the citizens right to express their opinions. I also agree with Justice Brennan's statement that the government would also need to reevaluate what other government related symbols one would not be able to burn. Prohibiting this action would result in the government micromanaging self expression. Something that is in fact very unconstitutional.
I also disagree with the ruling of the Texas v. Johnson case. Citizens do have freedom of speech and can speak out against any issue that they see is a problem to the US. And freedom of speech is limited to the clear and present danger test- if you see flag burning as speech. Burning the national symbol is a very disrespectful of proving a point and it sends the wrong message, when one can simply put their opinions into words. As the Court states: "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." I agree with this to a certain point, but this has nothing to do with flag burning. If the idea itself is unpopular to society, one is still in their full right to express it, in their rights to free speech. Flag burning is not an idea, it is an action, one that denounces loyalty to the country as a whole.
I agree with the court's ruling of the Texas v. Johnson case of 1989. The prohibition of flag burning is unconstitutional in accordance with the first amendment. While I understand the emotional impact the desecration of the American flag can cause, I do not feel as though flag burning is relevant to the clear and present danger test. I feel that the clear and present danger test should only be used in times of great disturbance, such as shouting "FIRE" in the middle of a movie theatre. Since flag desecration cases occur "fewer than ten times per year since 1990," according to the fact sheet, the desecration of flags does not affect enough people in order to cause clear and present danger. I also believe that banning flag burning goes against the very beliefs that the flag stands for. The flag is a symbol of freedom and should not be used to deny citizens the very freedoms it stands for. Justice Brennan makes a great point when he says, "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." By allowing the desecration of the flag, Americans are showing patriotism through the support of the first amendment. The country needs to stand firm on the beliefs in which it was founded and therefore the burning of the flag and the ruling of this case are constitutional.
I believe that the court made a fair judgment in Texas v. Johnson. The ruling was accurate based on a fact that Katherine highlighted. The burning of a flag, however wrong or unpatriotic, is not an example of clear and present danger. The four justices that did not agree with the majority decision listed various reasons for disagreement. The main and most powerful argument was that the flag stands for things such as freedom, equal opportunity, and of religious tolerance. However, what they fail to recognize is the fact that the burning of the flag is just that, an action of disagreement and little else. Surley nothing to do with "clear and present danger" will come of this. Another argument supporting the ruling is the First Amendment itself; the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive. Burning a flag may make some angry, but it is an action reserved to citizens under the Constitution. Anger is not the same as clear and present danger. Finally, as mentioned in the article, the judgement helps strengthen the symbolism of the flag. For, "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so, we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."
The Courts made a fair ruling in this precedent setting case regarding flag burning. Although the argument against the ruling is that flag burning isn't a form of speech and that it is a form of conduct is an inaccurate conclusion. While arguing from a strictly constitutional perspective, speech can take several forms. It is not only speaking words, but also performing acts that speak to the public without saying words, such as burning a flag or burning a cross. The founding fathers included the freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights because they knew some opinions would be widely unpopular amongst the American public, and that the Constitution needed to protect ALL American citizens, no matter how unpopular their opinion is. If the government restricted one aspect of the free speech clause with this amendment, it would be on track to destroy our rights as citizens to protest and criticize the government, a right cherished by all Americans since the beginning. We need to preserve our basic rights as citizens, and the courts realized this in making this ruling that favors protection of this act under the first amendment.
I disagree with the decisions the courts made in 1989 when they determined that the prohibition of the burning of a U.S. flag was unconstitutional. They argued that the law violated the 1st Amendment of freedom of speech, but the burning of the flag is an action, not a speech. In 1998, the Flag Protection Amendment was reintroduced because 75 percent of surveyed Americans were in favor of a law that would prohibit burning the flag. It was said that the amendment "will not control or infringe upon free speech, but will outlaw conduct that most citizens regard as intolerable." I agree with this statement because burning is an action that violates the pride of America and is a statement against America as a whole, not just the government. As said in the article, we value our freedom and to burn the the symbol of that freedom is unconstitutional.
The amendment would even be created with vague regulation so that only the most desecrating acts would be prohibited. Any form of speech against the flag is allowed, but burning or any other form of degradation would be prohibited. I agree with this because the flag represents the freedom that was won by the soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War in order to gain freedom from Britain. Burning the flag shows a lack of respect to the meaning of the United States and the reason people have any freedom at all. Had the Revolutionary War never been fought, America could still be under rule of Britain and the flag would not even exist because it would not have the same purpose as it does today. The flag stands for the pride, freedom and strength of America that was earned by people who wanted the best for the future of the United States. To allow the burning of the biggest symbol of freedom without consequence is entirely unconstitutional.
In the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989 the Supreme Court made a fair judgement. There were two main questions that needed to be answered in order to make a decision in this case. First, is burning a flag considered a type of speech protected under the first amendment? Actually the answer to this question had already been stated in the earlier Supreme Court case, Stromberg v. California. The 1919 decision was a landmark in that it affirmed the protection of symbolic speech in the first amendment. Therefore the burning of the U.S. flag is a form of symbolic speech. While I agree with Katrina that flag burning is more of an action than a form of speech, it is an action that has been protected under the first amendment for almost a century. The second question is whether the burning of the flag created a "clear and present danger," in which case the action would not be protected under the first amendment as in Schenck v. United States. I do not believe the act created any "clear and present danger," nor do I believe that it caused any threat to order. In conclusion I believe any decision that would outlaw flag burning would be unconstitutional and would disregard earlier precedents set by the Supreme Court. I feel that public opinion must have played a key role in the decision of four judges to support the Texas statute which would outlaw flag burning.
I believe in the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989, the Supreme Court made a very wise judgement. Flag burning does not fall under the 1st Amendment, in that it is not a demonstration of freedom of speech, but is just reckless conduct. I agree with Nick in that the flag burning is not a "clear and present danger" the people in the United States, but it is the desecration of one of America's most important symbols. The Supreme Court justices realized a loose interpretation of the Constitution was needed to to outlaw flag burning since it posed no immediate danger the the people, but it was necessary and proper to hold the image of the country in tact. Speech and demonstrations of freedom is protecteded in America, but only to a certain extent. Some desecrations and profanity needs to be controlled since it creates great disturbances in society as a whole.
I agree with the court's decision in Texas v. Johnson. Forbidding flag burning is a direct violation of the First Amendment; it in no way presents a clear and present danger, and therefore cannot be limited. Public disapproval of flag burning is not a reason to outlaw it, especially since flag burning and other acts of desecration occur "fewer than ten times per year since 1990" according to the fact sheet. Because of the rarity of flag burning incidents, I feel like Congress should be focusing on other, much more pressing issues.
ReplyDeleteThe United States is a nation built upon the idea of freedom and the power of the people. Forbidding people to demonstrate their ideas about the government or America just because they are negative is a step away from the Constitutional ideals and toward totalitarian ideals, a point also referenced in the fact sheet. Americans are given the right to free speech, but also the right to assemble, and in many cases flag burning occurs during a demonstration. Outlawing flag burning also violates this right.
I also agree with Justice William Brennan's statement "Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Burning the flag is exercising your right to freedom of speech, and the Government was right in Texas V. Johnson in not taking that right away despite the public opinion.
I disagree with the court’s decision of the Texas v. Johnson case. Deeming this act of desecration an act of freedom of speech passes the boundaries of what our four fathers would claim to be constitutional. The 1st Amendment has its boundaries which limits true freedom of speech. Burning the American flag goes against the standards of society and therefore goes against the 1st Amendment The consequence of allowing flag burning to be a sign of free speech, will lead people to resort to more radical behavior until the government acts upon them.
ReplyDeleteOne justice argued, “The flag 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.” The desecration of the American flag by George Johnson in front of a city hall is a sign of ignorance to the United States government. The Clear and Present Danger doctrine, which came about in 1919 during Schneck v. United States, will argue against the supporters of the ruling of the Texas v. Johnson case. The idea of the Clear and Present Danger doctrine came about because the 1st Amendment often clashed with the government’s interest in maintaining order and morale. Burning the American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall during the Republican National Convention clearly goes against the maintenance of order in society.
The Supreme Court overturning Johnson’s conviction goes against 75% of the American population. The Supreme Court is to decide its rulings based on public opinion, to an extent, but this goes against the majority of Americans along with the 49 states who favor a flag protection amendment. According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “The flag is a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of good will for other peoples who share our aspirations.” The symbol of American liberties being desecrated should not be tolerated by the Supreme Court’s, and therefore the courts made a mistake in overturning Johnson’s conviction in 1989.
I agree with the court's decision in the Texas v. Johnson case. Prohibiting flag burning is taking away people's right to free speech which is a clearly cut right in the First Amendment. The courts stated in 1990 "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." Although I myself may not agree with the idea of burning the American flag as a way of getting a point across it is unconstitutional to take this right away. The article also stated that if the amendment to allow congress to prohibit desecration of the American flag was passed "it would destroy our right to protest and criticize the government...if passed, it would be the first time in American history that a citizen could be arrested for illegally destroying a piece of property (a flag) that that citizen could purchase legally from any number of stores across the country." Although the government is trying to prohibit an action that may not be of good taste they are also trying to take away the citizens right to express their opinions. I also agree with Justice Brennan's statement that the government would also need to reevaluate what other government related symbols one would not be able to burn. Prohibiting this action would result in the government micromanaging self expression. Something that is in fact very unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI also disagree with the ruling of the Texas v. Johnson case. Citizens do have freedom of speech and can speak out against any issue that they see is a problem to the US. And freedom of speech is limited to the clear and present danger test- if you see flag burning as speech. Burning the national symbol is a very disrespectful of proving a point and it sends the wrong message, when one can simply put their opinions into words. As the Court states: "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."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this to a certain point, but this has nothing to do with flag burning. If the idea itself is unpopular to society, one is still in their full right to express it, in their rights to free speech. Flag burning is not an idea, it is an action, one that denounces loyalty to the country as a whole.
I agree with the court's ruling of the Texas v. Johnson case of 1989. The prohibition of flag burning is unconstitutional in accordance with the first amendment. While I understand the emotional impact the desecration of the American flag can cause, I do not feel as though flag burning is relevant to the clear and present danger test. I feel that the clear and present danger test should only be used in times of great disturbance, such as shouting "FIRE" in the middle of a movie theatre. Since flag desecration cases occur "fewer than ten times per year since 1990," according to the fact sheet, the desecration of flags does not affect enough people in order to cause clear and present danger.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that banning flag burning goes against the very beliefs that the flag stands for. The flag is a symbol of freedom and should not be used to deny citizens the very freedoms it stands for. Justice Brennan makes a great point when he says, "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." By allowing the desecration of the flag, Americans are showing patriotism through the support of the first amendment. The country needs to stand firm on the beliefs in which it was founded and therefore the burning of the flag and the ruling of this case are constitutional.
I believe that the court made a fair judgment in Texas v. Johnson. The ruling was accurate based on a fact that Katherine highlighted. The burning of a flag, however wrong or unpatriotic, is not an example of clear and present danger.
ReplyDeleteThe four justices that did not agree with the majority decision listed various reasons for disagreement. The main and most powerful argument was that the flag stands for things such as freedom, equal opportunity, and of religious tolerance. However, what they fail to recognize is the fact that the burning of the flag is just that, an action of disagreement and little else. Surley nothing to do with "clear and present danger" will come of this.
Another argument supporting the ruling is the First Amendment itself; the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive. Burning a flag may make some angry, but it is an action reserved to citizens under the Constitution. Anger is not the same as clear and present danger.
Finally, as mentioned in the article, the judgement helps strengthen the symbolism of the flag. For, "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so, we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."
The Courts made a fair ruling in this precedent setting case regarding flag burning. Although the argument against the ruling is that flag burning isn't a form of speech and that it is a form of conduct is an inaccurate conclusion. While arguing from a strictly constitutional perspective, speech can take several forms. It is not only speaking words, but also performing acts that speak to the public without saying words, such as burning a flag or burning a cross. The founding fathers included the freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights because they knew some opinions would be widely unpopular amongst the American public, and that the Constitution needed to protect ALL American citizens, no matter how unpopular their opinion is. If the government restricted one aspect of the free speech clause with this amendment, it would be on track to destroy our rights as citizens to protest and criticize the government, a right cherished by all Americans since the beginning. We need to preserve our basic rights as citizens, and the courts realized this in making this ruling that favors protection of this act under the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the decisions the courts made in 1989 when they determined that the prohibition of the burning of a U.S. flag was unconstitutional. They argued that the law violated the 1st Amendment of freedom of speech, but the burning of the flag is an action, not a speech. In 1998, the Flag Protection Amendment was reintroduced because 75 percent of surveyed Americans were in favor of a law that would prohibit burning the flag. It was said that the amendment "will not control or infringe upon free speech, but will outlaw conduct that most citizens regard as intolerable." I agree with this statement because burning is an action that violates the pride of America and is a statement against America as a whole, not just the government. As said in the article, we value our freedom and to burn the the symbol of that freedom is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteThe amendment would even be created with vague regulation so that only the most desecrating acts would be prohibited. Any form of speech against the flag is allowed, but burning or any other form of degradation would be prohibited. I agree with this because the flag represents the freedom that was won by the soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War in order to gain freedom from Britain. Burning the flag shows a lack of respect to the meaning of the United States and the reason people have any freedom at all. Had the Revolutionary War never been fought, America could still be under rule of Britain and the flag would not even exist because it would not have the same purpose as it does today. The flag stands for the pride, freedom and strength of America that was earned by people who wanted the best for the future of the United States. To allow the burning of the biggest symbol of freedom without consequence is entirely unconstitutional.
In the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989 the Supreme Court made a fair judgement. There were two main questions that needed to be answered in order to make a decision in this case. First, is burning a flag considered a type of speech protected under the first amendment? Actually the answer to this question had already been stated in the earlier Supreme Court case, Stromberg v. California. The 1919 decision was a landmark in that it affirmed the protection of symbolic speech in the first amendment. Therefore the burning of the U.S. flag is a form of symbolic speech. While I agree with Katrina that flag burning is more of an action than a form of speech, it is an action that has been protected under the first amendment for almost a century. The second question is whether the burning of the flag created a "clear and present danger," in which case the action would not be protected under the first amendment as in Schenck v. United States. I do not believe the act created any "clear and present danger," nor do I believe that it caused any threat to order.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion I believe any decision that would outlaw flag burning would be unconstitutional and would disregard earlier precedents set by the Supreme Court. I feel that public opinion must have played a key role in the decision of four judges to support the Texas statute which would outlaw flag burning.
I believe in the case of Texas v. Johnson in 1989, the Supreme Court made a very wise judgement. Flag burning does not fall under the 1st Amendment, in that it is not a demonstration of freedom of speech, but is just reckless conduct. I agree with Nick in that the flag burning is not a "clear and present danger" the people in the United States, but it is the desecration of one of America's most important symbols. The Supreme Court justices realized a loose interpretation of the Constitution was needed to to outlaw flag burning since it posed no immediate danger the the people, but it was necessary and proper to hold the image of the country in tact. Speech and demonstrations of freedom is protecteded in America, but only to a certain extent. Some desecrations and profanity needs to be controlled since it creates great disturbances in society as a whole.
ReplyDelete