More handpicked essays just for you.
Freedom of speech and what it entails america
Freedom of expression in the constitution of the united states of america
Freedom of speech and what it entails america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Freedom of speech and what it entails america
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 Bill of Rights, a flag desecrating amendment should not be passed. The words of the First Amendment state, "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." (Brief 1) Flag burning, a form of symbolic speech, is therefore protected by the constitution. An amendment revoking this right would be unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights was wri...
In today’s time frame the term disrespect can be defined by many different things. The dictionary defines disrespect as the lack of respect or courtesy. In the military disrespect can be show as not only talking back, but hand gestures, body language, the emphasis of your voice when responding to a command, or even not acknowledging one command. Out of all the possible signs of disrespect I think personally that talking back, body language and the emphasis of your voice are the major ones that can get you in trouble. Even not going to the authorize position of parade rest is a sign of disrespect, because as Non Commissioned Officer if you out rank the subordinate the person who is receiving information, criticism, or a command should be at
The Supreme Court, 490 U.S. 397 (1989), Justice Brennan, held that: the defendant 's act of burning the American flag during a demonstration march was considered expressive conduct and was within the protection of the First Amendment, and the State could not justify the prosecution of the defendant based on the interest to preserve the American flag as a symbol of
In the First Amendment it says “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.” Although some argued that the right to burn the American flag is fundamental to the First Amendment
The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951(Wikipedia,2014).
Much history came within the Texas v. Johnson case. It all started during the 1984 Republican National Convention, this is where Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest what policies Regan was administrating (Brennan 1). A march was occurring throughout the city streets, which Johnson did take part in. Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted him on (Brennan 1). No person was specifically injured during this protest; although, many witnesses were severely offended (Brennan 1). Johnson was convicted of Desecration of a venerated object, which violated the Texas Statue. The state court of appeals affirmed Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and reversed the case stating it was a form of expressive conduct, so it was alright (Brennan 1). In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that Johnson’s burning of the flag was protected under his First Amendment rights (Brennan 1). The court also found that although witnesses may have found it offensive, does not...
Flag burning is very controversial because people have different definitions of what “freedom of speech” means and what our flag stands for. This essay explores these definitions from the proponent’s viewpoint for a law protecting the flag and the opponents view point against such a law. The most debated question being asked at this time is: is flag burning protected under the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech? It all depends on how a person defines the flag and interprets the First Amendment.
Freedom of speech and expression is a right given to all Americans under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It is a difficult concept to embrace when individuals are faced with ideas they oppose. In this kind of situation, the protection guaranteed to American citizens becomes even more important. The First Amendment was designed not only to protect the freedom to express ideas and sentiments with which one agrees, but also the ideas and sentiments with which one disagrees. It is for precisely this reason that the government should maintain the right of individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the policies of the government through the act of flag burning and not amend the Constitution to make such an act illegal.
For those who want to light Old Glory on fire, stomp all over it, or spit on it to make some sort of "statement," I say let them do it. But under one condition: they MUST get permission from three sponsors. First, you need permission of a war veteran. Perhaps a Marine who fought at Iwo Jima? The American flag was raised over Mount Surabachi upon the bodies of thousands of dead buddies. Each night spent on Iwo meant half of everyone you knew would be dead tomorrow, a coin flip away from a bloody end upon a patch of sand your mother couldn't find on a map.
The burning of an American flag is not necessarily anti-American or unpatriotic. Sometimes, the greatness and majesty of the flag is better portrayed in the powerful political and societal statement of destroying it. This act can convey the feeling of the American people that their government is not the body it should be or that it is not doing the will of the people. This is probably one of the most emotional actions they can take to get the government's attention. Some of these protestors may even love the flag as much as those who are for banning flag burning, but the burners want to emphasize the seriousness of their complaint. The act of burning a flag may be the people's way of telling the government that it is co...
The first and only time I had ever heard of someone burning the flag when I came across an article on Regory Lee Johnson. In 1984, he showed up at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas and burned an American flag in order to show his knowledge of the policies of Reagan administration. At the time, he was convicted of flag desecration, but the Supreme Court overturned that decision by ruling that burning a flag was “expressive conduct within protection of the first Amendment” (Pledging allegiance). The issue of flag desecration is one that been around for a while. There are two sides to the debate: one being that the flag should be protected by law, and one being that it should not because it restricts free speech. There have been times when Congress has tried to pass laws protecting the flag, but Supreme Court as struck those laws down by deeming them as “violating the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and hence unconstitutional” (Wall, 1995). However, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling of the laws being unconstitutional, there are many advocates that are still trying to pass flag protection laws by amending the Constitution to allow it. This cannot be done. The constitution should not be amended to protect the flag because it would be a violation to our first amendment: our right to free speech.
It is argued that because flag burning can be viewed as expressive or symbolic speech, it falls under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech, and therefore cannot be criminalized.
"Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus” by Derek Bok, published in Boston Globe in 1991, is an essay about what we should do when we are faced with expressions that are offensive to some people. The author discusses that although the First Amendment may protect our speech, but that does not mean it protects our speech if we use it immorally and inappropriately. The author claims that when people do things such as hanging the Confederate flag, “they would upset many fellow students and ignore the decent regard for the feelings of others” (70). The author discusses how this issue has approached Supreme Court and how the Supreme Court backs up the First Amendment and if it offends any groups, it does not affect the fact that everyone has his or her own freedom of speech. The author discusses how censorship may not be the way to go, because it might bring unwanted attention that would only make more devastating situations. The author believes the best solutions to these kind of situations would be to
Pendergast, Tom, Et Al. Constitutional Amendments: From Freedom of Speech to Flag Burning. N.p.: UXL, 2001. Print.
They are many different forms of poems that writers make. Poems are meant to read in order to go beyond traditional form of thinking. The poem “Read This Poem from the Bottom up” by Ruth Porritt is a reverso poem in which you can read the poem from bottom up to top down. This would be consider a free verse poem and yet saying it’s a free verse could be consider an oxymoron to free verses because it must have the same words to read from the top down to bottom up. This poem has all the ingredients to be consider a good poem. The purpose of the poem is to break traditional form of thinking and challenge the narrator to break the rules of how poem can be written.
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A war crime is defined as a “violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war” (“War Crimes”), and are attacks “against civilian populations, prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field” (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel, devastating military methods and are “…Committed primarily by military personnel” (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can commit, including “murder, ill treatment…murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Friedman). Originally constructed as international law by the London Charter on August 8th, 1945 and further developed by the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes are aggressive, unacceptable and unjust actions performed by military workforce that occur during a war.