Flag Desecration is Freedom of Expression
Our nation’s flag is an everlasting symbol of freedom and hope that stands as a testament to our nation’s power. Most importantly our flag represents the freedom of the individual to express his ideals as they see fit. Therefore when the very essence of Americans freedom is challenged by the “flag amendment,” that would forbid the desecration of the American flag, a dilemma forms. While flag burning is highly offensive, it is none the less a means of expression and is protected by the constitution of America. Forbidding an individual from expressing themselves is the opposite of what our flag represents.
Even though Flag burning is considered one of the highest displays of hatred toward a country, it is still protected by the first amendment. It is a means of expression. Despite the fact that this sounds a little farfetched, flag desecration is under the same category as art, or literature—expression. When an individual feels dissatisfaction towards his country, depending on the individual, they may write a political satire, draw a political cartoon, or burn the flag. It is all relevant to the level of dissatisfaction of the individual. Flag burning cannot be thought of outside of the spectrum of expression.
In some cases flag burning is not even taken seriously by those involved in the act; most cases are considered “drunken pranks” or merely “teenage vandalism.” In the entire history of the United States there have been less than two hundred reported cases of flag desecration. In addition to the fact that there is a lack of flag burning in total, flag desecration is on the decline—In 1996 there were 31 reported cases, in 2002 11 cases, in 2003 six cases, and this year so far there has been only one case.
The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the judicial system, ruled that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive…” Supporting this amendment debases the ideals of our founding fathers.
Parsons, L. H. (2009). The Birth of Modern Politics: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and the Election of 1828. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
Benson, Alvin K. “Bo Jackson.” The Eighties in America. Ed. Berman Milton. 3 vols. Salem Press,
Stripes and stars forever, right? Well, what exactly does that mean? The American Flag can be seen almost anywhere. From the high-school, to the ball park, and even in our homes, the American flag stands as a symbol of all that is good and true in America. 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, Gregory Lee 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. 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.
Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom 1822-1832. Vol. 2. NY: Harper & Row, 1981. Print.
In light of the following documents and your knowledge of the 1820's and 1830's, to what extent do you agree with the Jacksonians' view of themselves?
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
The United States Government should deem desecration of the American Flag unconstitutional because of the freedom in which the flag represents, along with the blood, sweat, and tears that were shed by our brave soldiers and veterans. Desecration of the American Flag suggests a disdain, or a disregard for the symbolic meaning under which it represents. The American Flag has forever and a day been an image declaring freedom and democracy, and has showcased our principles and beliefs as a country.
The dissenting opinion to the previous idea is that the government's legitimate interest in preserving the symbolic value of the flag is, however, essentially the same that may have motivated a particular act of flag burning. The flag uniquely symbolizes the ideas of liberty, equality, and tolerance -- ideas that Americans have passionately defended and debated throughout our history. The flag embodies the spirit of our national commitment to those ideals. To the world, the flag is our promise that we will continue to strive for these ideals. To us, the flag is a reminder both that the struggle for li...
The Young Reader's Companion to American History. Ed. John A. Garraty. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1994. 384+. Print.
In the United States, the rate of incarceration has increased shockingly over the past few years. In 2008, it was said that one in 100 U.S. adults were behind bars, meaning more than 2.3 million people. Even more surprising than this high rate is the fact that African Americans have been disproportionately incarcerated, especially low-income and lowly educated blacks. This is racialized mass incarceration. There are a few reasons why racialized mass incarceration occurs and how it negatively affects poor black communities.
"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
The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness is a book by Michelle Alexander, a civil rights litigator and legal scholar. The book discusses race-related issues specific to African-American males and mass incarceration in the United States. Michelle Alexander (2010) argues that despite the old Jim Crow is death, does not necessarily means the end of racial caste (p.21). In her book “The New Jim Crow”, Alexander describes a set of practices and social discourses that serve to maintain African American people controlled by institutions. In this book her analyses is centered in examining the mass incarceration phenomenon in recent years. Comparing Jim Crow with mass incarceration she points out that mass incarceration is a network of laws, policies, customs and institutions that works together –almost invisible– to ensure the subordinate status of a group defined by race, African American (p. 178 -190).
3. Divine, Breen, Fredrickson, Williams, eds., America Past and Present Volume II: since 1865 sixth edition (New York: Longman 2002).
Foner, Eric and John A. Garraty. The Reader’s Companion to American History. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991).