Honors level students could probably do the WebQuest as a two-day activity, without any of the preceding activities. Kathi Alyce Drew: Your Honor, we believe that if a symbol over a period of time is ignored or abused that it can, in fact, lose its symbolic effect. It is not the State's ends, but its means, to which we object. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. The State, apparently, is concerned that such conduct will lead people to believe either that the flag does not stand for nationhood and national unity, but instead reflects other, less positive concepts, or that the concepts reflected in the flag do not in fact exist, that is, that we do not enjoy unity as a Nation. Our colleagues in dissent advance powerful arguments why respondent may be convicted for his expression, reminding us that among those who will be dismayed by our holding will be some who have had the singular honor of carrying the flag in battle.
Code § 35-45-1-4 1986 ; Iowa Code § 32. The State's argument is not that it has an interest simply in maintaining the flag as a symbol of something, no matter what it symbolizes; indeed, if that were the State's position, it would be difficult to see how that interest is endangered by highly symbolic conduct such as Johnson's. Showed first 250 characters The flag burning in this particular case did not threaten such a reaction. The creation of a federal right to post bulletin boards and graffiti on the Washington Monument might enlarge the market for free expression, but at a cost I would not pay. If the State's regulation is not related to expression, then the less stringent standard we announced in United States v. The Court was unwilling to allow the government to embark on this path for fear of where it might lead.
To do so, we would be forced to consult our own political preferences, and impose them on the citizenry, in the very way that the First Amendment forbids us to do. The Texas law is thus not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed instead to protect it only against impairments that would cause serious offense to others. President Franklin Roosevelt authorized the use of the flag on labels, packages, cartons, and containers intended for export as lend-lease aid, in order to inform people in other countries of the United States' assistance. We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the First Amendment. Johnson was convicted of desecrating a venerated object under state law and sentenced to one year in prison as well as a fine.
The defendant was convicted under the statute for burning the U. The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. City of New York, , 1988 , we stated that a facial challenge is only proper under the First Amendment when a statute can never be applied in a permissible manner or when, even if it may be validly applied to a particular defendant, it is so broad as to reach the protected speech of third parties.
The State offers two separate interests to justify this conviction: preventing breaches of the peace and preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity. The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. Conceivably that value will be enhanced by the Court's conclusion that our national commitment to free expression is so strong that even the United States as ultimate guarantor of that freedom is without power to prohibit the desecration of its unique symbol. As the demonstrators marched through the streets, chanting their message, a fellow protestor handed Johnson an American flag that had been taken from a flag pole at one of their protest locations. United States, 1970 ; and of picketing about a wide variety of causes, see, e. Even so, I have no doubt that the interest in preserving that value for the future is both significant and legitimate. In order to decide whether O'Brien's test applies here, therefore, we must decide whether Texas has asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression.
It is more than a proud symbol of the courage, the determination, and the gifts of nature that transformed 13 fledgling Colonies into a world power. O'Brien, , whereby an important governmental interest in regulating nonspeech can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms when speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct. The lowering of the American flag at Fort Sumter was viewed as the start of the war. The only evidence offered by the State at trial to show the reaction to Johnson's actions was the testimony of several persons who had been seriously offended by the flag burning. Had he chosen to spraypaint -- or perhaps convey with a motion picture projector -- his message of dissatisfaction on the facade of the Lincoln Memorial, there would be no question about the power of the Government to prohibit his means of expression. Accordingly, one intending to convey a message of respect for the flag by burning it in a public square might nonetheless be guilty of desecration if he knows that others -- perhaps simply because they misperceive the intended message -- will be seriously offended. Francis Scott Key, a Washington lawyer, had been granted permission by the British to board one of their warships to negotiate the release of an American who had been taken prisoner.
The case splintered the nine Supreme Court justices, much as the issue of flag burning splintered the rest of the nation. Johnson burned an American flag as part -- indeed, as the culmination -- of a political demonstration that coincided with the convening of the Republican Party and its renomination of Ronald Reagan for President. Thus, in no way can it be said that Texas is punishing him because his hearers -- or any other group of people -- were profoundly opposed to the message that he sought to convey. Of copies of the Presidential seal? It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. 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. And so great is our commitment to the process that, except in the rare case, we do not pause to express distaste for the result, perhaps for fear of undermining a valued principle that dictates the decision.
Students can begin writing the letter in class and finish it for homework. Moreover, this Court will not create an exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment for the American flag alone. So it is with the American flag. The decision of the United States Supreme Court was an unconstitutional one in my opinion. We never before have held that the Government may ensure that a symbol be used to express only one view of that symbol or its referents. The demonstration coincided with the Republican National Convention held in the city. The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved.
Indeed, we would not be surprised to learn that the persons who framed our Constitution and wrote the Amendment that we now construe were not known for their reverence for the Union Jack. The prohibition would be supported by the legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. Held: Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. The symbol carries its message to dissidents both at home and abroad who may have no interest at all in our national unity or survival. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v.