Flag Protection Act example essay topic

Brett Crider February 13, 2002 J. Dail Eng 101 There is a great travesty going on in America right now. Everyday, people are fighting to stop one of America's greatest freedoms, the freedom of speech. Even this way of exercising America's greatest amendment, freedom of speech, is not liked by all people it is still protected under our nation's law. The act of publicly burning an American flag is something that is deemed disgraceful by many Americans, but it should not be outlawed.

Many people are offended by the act of publicly burning an American flag and feel it should be outlawed based on the fact that it is offensive to the citizens of this country. Although this may be true, people still have the right to protest. This was upheld in a Supreme Court case Texas vs. Johnson, where the defendant Mr. Johnson was arrested for publicly burning a flag outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. After being arrested Mr. Johnson was convicted of setting fire to a flag during a protest and chanting with other protesters; "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you" (Texas vs. Johnson). He appealed his claim to the Texas Supreme Court of Appeals where they overturned the conviction based on the fact that he was exercising his first amendment right.

One of the Supreme Court justices went on to say, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not Crider 2 prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable" (Texas vs. Johnson). The above Supreme Court decision allows protesters to burn flags as a type of symbolic political speech. The flag is a symbol of the United States, and what happens to the flag does not directly affect the United States, therefore it should not be outlawed. The supporters who want to outlaw the act of publicly burning a flag feel that it is demeaning to the United States.

Although this may be true and many Americans feel this way, our country was built on the understanding and ability of every person to protest the actions of the government. Rep. Randy Cunningham, a supporter for the ban of flag burning, said on the House floor "To watch somebody burn the American flag represents a destruction of [the United State's] values, of [the United State's] ideas and of [the United State's] thoughts". (Cong. Rec. July 2000.) Although this claim is a very good one, I believe the better truth was stated during a U.S. Supreme Court Case.

In the case United States vs. Eichman it was stated "But the mere destruction or disfigurement of a particular physical manifestation of the symbol, without more, does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself in any way" (3). This statement shows one of the underlining problems with the people who argue that flag burning should be outlawed. The flag is a symbol of this country, and in no way does burning the flag actually affect this country. Even the veterans of our wars feel that outlawing flag burning is something that should never be done. MSGT. (R) Marvin Virgil Stenhammar said, "Any country that places an Crider 3 inanimate object, over its people has no real liberty.

If this amendment passes, I feel flag burning will become a common form of protest against this ill-conceived policy" (4). Many of the veterans who have fought so strongly to protect America's freedoms believe we should not outlaw flag burning because it makes the United States no better than the countries we fought to protect the free world. To prohibit flag burning will only encourage people to burn and mutilate more flags. This happened when Congress passed the Flag Protection act, which prohibited the act of "knowingly mutilate [ing], de fac [ing], physically devil [ing], burn [ing], maintain [ing] on the floor or ground, or tramples upon a United States Flag. This was punishable by a fine or by being imprisoned for no more than a year, or both" (3). This bill was passed by both Houses in Congress, and went into effect unsigned by the President, who supported a constitutional amendment and not a bill.

On the day the law came into effect, October 30th 1989, hundreds of people took to the streets mutilating every flag in sight. Once again the case of flag burning was brought to the court's attention in the Supreme Court case United States vs. Eichman. The Supreme Court's decision stated that, once again, the form of flag burning that was done, was done out of protest to the new bill, and it would not revert its decision on Texas vs. Johnson which stated that burning was protected under the first amendment. Crider 4 The Supreme Court has decided repeatedly that outlawing the ability to burn a flag is unconstitutional as long as the person burning the flag is exercising their right to symbolic political protest. If we were to outlaw flag burning it would do nothing but to increase the amount of flags that people burn. Even though it is not right to burn a flag, is it a freedom we have been given as Americans.

We should not let anybody take that away from us. It is my personal belief that flag burning is wrong but the people who do burn flags should always have the right to do so.

Bibliography

Texas vs. Johnson, online internet, Tx. Supreme Crt. 1989 web Recording, online internet, July 2000 web record / flag protection amendment 17 jul 01.
htm United States vs. Eichman, online internet, United States Supreme Crt. 1990 web Marvin.