First Amendment Freedoms: A Modern Resurgence

The Constitution of the United States of America has many aspects that we all hold dear to our hearts as Americans. More importantly the first amendment has given us all the freedoms that we as Americans live by, and in fact have died for in the past. The freedom of religion, both the establishment and exercising of religion. The freedom of speech, both in the spoken, and written, and visual expression of speech. The freedom of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the redress of government.
In the last fifty years there has been a resurgence of those freedoms and they’ve been tested more than ever before by the people of this country. Growing decent among the people and their expression of protest

towards a government that they feel to be wrong in its actions have tested the Constitution and the first amendment more than any time in our history.
According to Texas v. Johnson, US Courts (n.d), in 1984 Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the convention center where the Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas, Texas. Johnson burned the flag to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others. Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted by a Texas court, and he appealed that conviction arguing that is actions were “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court agreed to here his case according the US Courts (n.d).
The issue at hand, is burring the flag “symbolic speech” protected by the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, yes. By a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court agreed with Gregory Lee Johnson that his burning of the flag represented his right under the First Amendment, and it constituted his right to “symbolic speech”. According to US Courts (n.d) in Texas v. Johnson, Justice William Brennan agreed and stated for the majority that flag burning constitutes a form of symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority also noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society’s outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech. According to Cornell Law (2016), Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the dissent argued that the flag’s unique status as a symbol of national unity outweighed “symbolic speech” concerns, and thus, the government could lawfully prohibit flag burning.
When thinking of this case one must be able to take themselves out of the anger and rage that may influence the proper decision making process. Instead of thinking only from one view point, take for instance a strong supporter of the flag, or even a veteran that has fought for his or her country, the flag is a very important symbol to them as well. The flag itself is scared and important to all Americans, but as a veteran is means so much more and to see it burned or torn in protest is very offensive.
Another more recent example happened in 2009 in Cape Girardeau, MO. Frank L. Snider III, was arrested by Cape Girardeau police officer because he desecrated a flag on the sidewalk in front of his home to protest government acts according to ACLU (2014). According to Rothert & Doty (2016), Snider filed a lawsuit on July 6, 2010 against Cape Girardeau, and police officer Matthew Peters, the arresting officer. On March 20, 2012 the federal district court declared that Missouri’s statute prohibiting flag desecration is unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law (Rothert & Doty, 2016). According the district court ruling, “A law directed at the communicative nature of conduct must, like a law directed at speech itself, be justified by the substantial showing of need that the First Amendment requires. Here the state does not, and likely could not, articulate an interest that would justify restricting expression” (Rothert & Doty, 2016). As we can see from past decisions made by courts across the nation, any restriction of “symbolic speech”, or desecration of the flag are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Now that I’ve covered the legal defense of the freedom of speech, I want to discuss the reasons why we must defend these decisions as well. Yes, we all have our own opinions and in most cases everyone will more than likely agree that the flag is a symbol of our freedoms that we all hold dear and close to our hearts. But, more importantly, we must defend these decisions for the same that we fight for them as well. When we fight for our freedoms, we’re not only fighting for them as a principle of the majority opinion, but for the minority opinion as well. We must defend the speech that is accepted the same as we defend the forms of speech that are offensive.
As Americans we have the right of freedom of speech, that speech will in some cases be offensive to some of us, and accepted and embraced by others as well.

But, to infringe on ones freedom of speech goes against everything we as Americans believe as a whole, independence and freedom to live as we chose to live, to speak and express our opinions free from arrest of detention by government. Going back to the very foundation of our government we were speaking out against a ruler far from our own lands, and if we decide to silence speech or expression of speech that is offensive to the majority and punish the minority opinion, just because it offends us now. What will we do when the majority opinion is no longer shared, and the minority opinion is more accepted? How will we react when our speech is condemned or deemed offensive? By allowing and respecting the opinions and expressions of others, even those we find extremely offensive we only solidify our Constitution and more importantly the 1st Amendment. Our Constitution wasn’t written to defend the majority opinion, it was written to defend the minority opinion as well, because the minority has just as much freedom in expression as the majority at the end of the day, that is true intention and purpose of the 1st

Amendment.