Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Desecration of the American Flag
The protection of the American flag from desecration is a contentious issue which has evoked considerable debate. Those in support of creating an amendment which would prohibit desecration believe it should be protected due to its unique importance within the United States. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that the flag is a "symbol embodying our Nation" and that its desecration is not a requisite of any expression of ideas.
Proponents against an amendment which would prevent flag desecration believe that the flag should fall within the expansive realm of free speech. They also state that a curbing of this right would be contrary to what the flag is intended to symbolize. Additionally, the occurrence of flag burning is relatively infrequent and thus is not a pervasive issue which needs this level of consideration.
Personally, I believe that desecration of the American flag should be a right that falls within the purview of free speech. We are a nation founded on the espousal of public protest and dissention as a healthy facet of the democratic process. Curtailment of free speech, in any form, is an incremental step in the wrong direction and is in direct opposition with the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded. While I do not believe I personally would burn a flag, I fully support the right of others to express their opinions in such a manner. While Justice Rehnquist states that desecrating the American flag is not required for the expression of ideas, it should be noted that neither is a picket or a hunger strike or a march. While none of these is required to express ones dissention or opinion, they are all instruments through which we can do so. As such, the desecration of the American flag should be protected no differently than the aforementioned demonstrations.
Bibliography
Goldstein, R.J. (2000). Flag burning and free speech. University Press of Kansas.
Rosen, J. (1990). Was the Flag Burning Amendment Unconstitutional. Yale Law Journal, 100, 1073.
Welch, M., & D.), M.W. (. (2000). Flag burning. Aldine Transaction.
United States (1970), after a Vietnam veteran was arrested for wearing a jacket with those words into a courthouse. In principle, even speech that is "offensive" is considered to deserve protection, because the consequences of censorship are even more harmful to society than involuntary exposure to offensive words in public. The same right protects artistic expression as another form of speech. In many countries, offensive speech in public is prohibited
Free Speech Rights of College and University Faculty This is a paper that outlines Free Speech Rights issues at academic institutions and argues why it is important to preserve it. It has 16 sources. The freedom of speech is something that has to be preserved no matter what the medium of communication may be, and this is because members of society may be greatly disadvantaged if exceptions are made. As compared to the
People can communicate with family and friends even at very long distances without having to pay exorbitant amounts for long-distance calls. Disabled people who are socially isolated have a means of contacting others like themselves. Kids struggling with their homework can receive help from their classmates or get instant feedback from others. There are also the more personal aspects of a person's life which are taken care of by
Free Speech Although the concept of "freedom of speech" as outlined in the First Amendment to the Constitution appears relatively straightforward, over the course of the country's history numerous cases have arisen requiring this concept to be refined and interpreted for situations the framers of the Constitution could have scarcely imagined. However, the framer's motivations for protecting speech remain just as relevant today, and by examining precisely how and why the
Free Speech Clarence Brandenburg, standing with a burning cross in the background, stated at a public rally that "if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken." ("Brandenburg v Ohio") This statement led to the creation of the Brandenburg Test, a legal test to decide whether or not specific speech was guaranteed protection under
The Issue of Free Speech and the Relationship between Liberty and SecurityIntroductionIn democratic societies, the balance between individual liberty and public security is critical in order to protect citizens and secure their rights. As our world becomes increasingly interconnected, it is essential for countries to have a system in place where citizens can freely express themselves and have access to legal freedoms, while at the same time ensuring that appropriate