When a government is upholding the right to liberty, given in the Constitution and promised in the Declaration, citizens have a right to protest o change. Protest is necessary for Flag Burning is seen as a heinous act and many seen it as an act of disrespect. Disrespectful for the men and women who make the sacrifice and sometimes , if necessary, the ultimate sacrifice. Many want the constitution to protect the flag from any discrimination to protect the ones who have fallen. If the government is to mandate protection of flag, criminalizing any nature of disfiguration of the flag, it will be trampling on civil liberties as we know.
The Importance of Freedom of Expression in America Would life be the same without freedom of expression? Expressions of hate, sometimes called hate speech, are highly prevalent in today's society; one group using them is the KKK, in particular Charles Brandenburg. Government leaders may also want to repress free speech for the motive of keeping the citizenry in the dark so they don't learn about corruption in the hierarchy of our country. The aforementioned corruption is what freedom of expression was created for; to give the populace some control over the government's actions. The Vietnam War was one of the largest events where freedom of expression was used.
the affirmative side argued that the first amendment indeed does protect against symbolic speech but only certain situations pertain to this circumstance. They also claimed that even if the flag was personally owned the government still has a valid reason to protect this object due to what it embodies. Their philosophy was the level of symbolic speech needs to be determined in order to draw the line between criminal behavior and freedom of speech. The opposing argument to this question explains that flag burning is protected by the first amendment even if it’s privately owned. They also state that the government cannot stop flag burning as a form of protest if it does not destroy public and/or the property of others.
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.
Some argue that free speech should limit hate speech in order to protect certain American citizens. David van Mi... ... middle of paper ... ...d be constitutional or not is a growing controversy not only in public universities of America, but throughout the entire country as well. American citizens take pride in their freedom, but those values are put to the test when a speaker offends their morality by inciting hate. Ethical citizens must understand that hate speech falls under the same constitutional protection as any other speech. The right of free speech is undividable; when one citizen is denied this right, all citizens are denied.
But who can confirm that the government will only intervene and suspend civil liberties in times of crisis? The source would choose security over freedom because it suggests that in times of crisis, the government should protect its citizens by taking “decisive action”. This decisive action suggests that the government would not consult the people in making decisions and instead make them on their own. This secrecy on the government 's part, prevents the people from keeping the government accountable. We should not embrace the source because completely embracing it would lead to a society where civil liberties are undermined, where the government has too much power and where democracy is crumbling.
Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens. The ruling in Schneck v United States should be overturned because it violates the free speech clause. Under the free speech clause the government does not have the right to deny any persons the right to speak of their opinion of the government despite the severity of the subject at hand. In the Schenck case, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States government had the right to arrest Charles Schenck due to his actions. Because of his arrest, Schenck’s freedom of speech was violated when he was taken into custody for mailing out his opinion and advice on the draft.
Flag burning is a horrible act. It is offensive, not only to the Nation, but also to the many soldiers who died protecting what it stands for. Freedom. But what would that flag really stand for if Johnson could not freely exercise his right to express his political frustration? Charles Levendosky explained the court’s opinion, “The Supreme Court is nearly unanimous in accepting that flag burning in certain contexts expresses a message of dissent.
Also many sheriffs across the United States oppose gun control because it takes away the right of innocent citizens to self-defense. Gun control is an unconstitutional attempt at disobeying the Second Amendment, which was written to keep our country’s militia armed and to give the defenseless a fighting chance against corrupt criminals. Our Constitution is made up of the rights of all citizens of the United States, not one of these amendments refers only to a select few citizens, but all are meant to be acknowledged and withheld. The second amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, states, “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Spitzer 148). James Madison was the author of this amendment because he wanted to ensure citizens that the federal government would not take away any citizen’s right to bear arms.
Challenging Individual Rights and Liberty Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1).