Texas v. Johnson (1989) Can Flag Burning Be a Crime

Does the state have the authority to make it a crime to burn an American flag? Does it matter if its part of a political protest or a means for expressing a political opinion? These were the questions posed in the 1989 Supreme Court case of  Texas v. Johnson. It was a landmark decision that brought into question the bans on flag desecration found in the laws of many states. Fast Facts: Texas v. Johnson Case Argued: March 21, 1989Decision Issued:  June 21, 1989Petitioner: State of TexasRespondent:   Gregory Lee JohnsonKey Question: Is burning or otherwise destroying an American flag a form of speech that’s protected under the First Amendment?Majority Decision: Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and KennedyDissenting: Justices Rehnquist, White, Stevens, and O’ConnorRuling: The respondent’s actions were deemed by the court to be expressive conduct of a distinctively political nature, so in this context, burning the flag was considered a form of protected expression under the First Amendment. Background to Texas v. Johnson The 1984 Republican National Convention took place in Dallas, Texas. In front of the convention building, Gregory Lee (Joey) Johnson soaked an American flag in kerosene and burned it while protesting the policies of Ronald Reagan. Other protesters accompanied this by chanting â€Å"America; red, white and blue; we spit on you.† Johnson was arrested and convicted under a Texas law against intentionally or knowingly desecrating a state or national flag. He was fined $2000 and sentenced to one year in jail. He appealed to the Supreme Court where Texas argued that it had a right to protect the flag as a symbol of national unity. Johnson argued that his freedom to express himself protected his actions. Texas v. Johnson: Decision The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of Johnson. They rejected the claim that the ban was necessary to protect breaches of the peace due to the offense that burning a flag would cause. The State’s position ... amounts to a claim that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. Our precedents do not countenance such a presumption. On the contrary, they recognize that a principal â€Å"function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or ... even stirs people to anger.† Texas claimed that they needed to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. This undermined their case by conceding that Johnson was expressing a disfavored idea. Since the law stated that desecration is illegal if â€Å"the actor knows it will seriously offend one or more persons,† the court saw that the state’s attempt to preserve the symbol was tied to an attempt to suppress certain messages. â€Å"Whether Johnson’s treatment of the flag violated Texas law thus depended on the likely communicative impact of his expressive conduct.† Justice Brennan wrote in the majority opinion: If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. [...] [F]orbidding criminal punishment for conduct such as Johnson’s will not endanger the special role played by our flag or the feelings it inspires. ... Our decision is a reaffirmation of the principles of freedom and inclusiveness that the flag best reflects, and of the conviction that our toleration of criticism such as Johnson’s is a sign and source of our strength. ... The way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong. ... We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one’s own, no better way to counter a flag burner’s message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by — as one witness here did — according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents. Supporters of bans on flag burning say they aren’t trying to ban the expression of offensive ideas, just the physical acts. This means that desecrating a cross could be outlawed because it only bans physical acts and other means of expressing the relevant ideas can be used. Few, though, would accept this argument. Burning the flag is like a form of blasphemy or â€Å"taking the Lord’s name in vain,† It takes something revered and transforms it into something base, profane, and unworthy of respect. This is why people are so offended when they see a flag being burned. It is also why burning or desecration is protected — just as blasphemy is. The Significance of the Courts Decision Although only narrowly, the Court sided with free speech and free expression over the desire to suppress speech in the pursuit of political interests. This case sparked years of debate over the meaning of the flag. This included efforts to amend the Constitution to allow for a prohibition of the â€Å"physical desecration† of the flag. More immediately, the decision inspired Congress to rush through passage of the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The law  was designed for no other purpose but to ban the physical desecration of the American flag in defiance of this decision. Texas v. Johnson Dissents The Supreme Court decision in  Texas v. Johnson  was not unanimous. Four justices — White, O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Stevens — disagreed with the majority’s argument. They did not see that communicating a political message by burning the flag outweighed the state interest in protecting the flags physical integrity.   Writing for Justices White and O’Connor, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued: [T]he public burning of the American flag by Johnson was no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and at the same  time  it had a tendency to incite a breach of the peace. ... [Johnson’s public burning of the flag] obviously did convey Johnson’s bitter dislike of his country. But his act ... conveyed nothing that could not have been conveyed and was not conveyed just as forcefully in a dozen different ways. By this measure, it would be okay to ban a person’s expression of ideas if those ideas can be expressed in other ways. That would mean that its okay to ban a book if a person can speak the words instead, wouldnt it? Rehnquist admits that the  flag occupies a unique place in society. This means that an alternative form of expression which does not use the flag won’t have the same impact, significance, or meaning. Far from being a case of â€Å"one picture being worth a thousand words,† flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others. Grunts and howls do not inspire laws banning them, however. A person who grunts in public is looked at as being strange, but we don’t punish them for not communicating in whole sentences. If people are antagonized by the  desecration  of the American flag, it’s because of what they believe is being communicated by such acts. In a separate dissent, Justice Stevens wrote: [O]ne 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. Indeed, even if the actor knows that all possible witnesses will understand that he intends to send a message of respect, he might still be guilty of desecration if he also knows that this understanding does not lessen the offense taken by some of those witnesses. This suggests that it’s permissible to regulate people’s speech based upon how others will interpret it. All of the laws against â€Å"desecrating† an American flag do so in the context of publicly displaying the altered flag. This would also apply to laws that merely prohibit attaching an emblem to a flag. Doing it in private isn’t a crime. Therefore, the harm to be prevented must be the â€Å"harm† of others witnessing what was done. It can’t merely  be to prevent them from being offended, otherwise, public discourse would be reduced to platitudes. Instead, it must be to protect others from experiencing a radically different attitude towards and interpretation of the flag. Of course, it’s unlikely that someone would be prosecuted for desecrating a flag if only one or two random people are upset. That will be reserved for those who upset larger numbers of witnesses. In other words, the wishes of the majority to not be confronted with something too far outside their normal expectations can limit what sorts of ideas are expressed (and in what way) by the minority. This principle is completely foreign to constitutional law and even to the basic principles of liberty. This was eloquently stated the following year in the Supreme Court’s follow-up case of  United States v. Eichman: While flag desecration — like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures — is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. If freedom of expression is to have any real substance, it must cover the  freedom to express ideas that are uncomfortable, offensive, and disagreeable. That’s precisely what burning, defacing, or desecrating an American flag often does. The same is true with defacing or desecrating other objects which are commonly revered. The government has no authority to limit people’s uses of such objects to communicate only approved, moderate, and inoffensive messages.

Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide - 1374 Words

In any discussion of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) it is important to differentiate between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Although they may have similar goals, they differ in whether or not the physician participates in the action that finally ends life. In physician-assisted suicide the physician provides the necessary means or information and the patient performs the act (e.g. the physician provides sleeping pills and information about the lethal dose, while aware that the patient may commit suicide). However, in euthanasia the physician performs the intervention themselves. Currently, just four states (Oregon, Washington, Vermont and Montana) allow physician-assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide currently remains a felony in New York. Lawmakers supporting efforts to legalize physician-assisted suicide in New York believe it will likely take years, much like allowing medical marijuana did. I believe it’s somewhat hypocritical for physician-assisted suicide to remain illegal when it’s against the law for physicians to intervene when a competent adult patient refuses consent to receive care, even if death would be the likely result. In the meantime, patients with fatal prognosis only have three options available to them. First, they can wait it out until they slowly pass away while receiving palliative care for their pain. Second, those in severe enough pain can enter palliative sedation, which is similar to a coma. The third option available to themShow MoreRelatedEuthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide865 Words   |  4 Pagessubject for people; add in the idea of assisted suicides and there’s an uproar in society. Euthanasia or physician assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in our society today. Physician assisted suicide by definition is â€Å"suicide by a patient facilitated by means (as a drug prescription) or information (as an indication of a lethal dosage) provided by a physician aware of the patient’s intent (Merriam-Webster). There are two modes of looking at assisted suicides; either it’s seen as an absurd immoralRead MoreEuthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide918 Words   |  4 Pagesallows terminally ill patients to end their lives with the assistance of a physician. According to the legislature, patients who seek assisted-death must only have six months to live and are required to submit a written request as well as two oral requests at least 15 days apart. (Reilly). While Gov. Jerry Brown still has yet to approve this new law, the act has shed light on the topic of euthanasia/physician-assisted suicide. With the pending status of the law, the question remains on whether or notRead MoreEuthanasia Or Physician Assisted Suicide961 Words   |  4 PagesEuthanasia or physician assisted suicide, is the painless killing of a patient, suffering from a painful or incurable disease, like cancer, or alzheimer s, the practice is illegal in most countries, including the United States, although in the United States, it is a state decision, the only state in the United States that it is legal in is Oregon. Oregon passed the Death with Dignity Act in 1994, making euthanasia legal for chronically ill patients, the only caveat is that the doctor is allowedRead MoreEuthanasia, And Physician Assisted Suicide863 Words   |  4 Pagesare: euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide. Internationally, assisted suicide is a doctor prescribing drugs that end life. The patient is responsible for taking them. Euthanasia is the medication administered by doctors. Today, four countries have laws that allow euthanasia. (Ellis and Bronwyn) A few have laws for phys ician assisted suicide, and several countries have no laws against suicide. (Humphry) The United States of America have recently added a 5th state to offer assisted suicideRead MorePhysician Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia Essay1039 Words   |  5 PagesPhysician Assisted Suicide Is physician assisted suicide ethical? Physician assisted suicide is an up and coming ethical question that examines a person’s right to their own death. Many people support physician assisted suicide, citing that it can save a lot of pain and suffering. Others claim that the concept of physician assisted suicide is a slippery slope. A slippery slope in the sense that if society accepts euthanasia as a rightful death for the terminally ill, they will potentially acceptRead MoreEuthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide1629 Words   |  7 Pagesproblems, assisted suicide creates options to reduce the amount of suffering the patient must enduring. Dying with dignity could be beneficial for not only the person who is dying, but also the person’s family and loved ones. This option, however, is often viewed as unethical and immoral throughout society. Physician-assisted suicide offers an option for those with health issues but poses various ethical and social issues. Assisted death is practiced in two different ways: euthanasia and physician-assistedRead MorePhysician Assisted Suicide And Euthanasia Essay1806 Words   |  8 PagesPuett WRIT 1401 12/06/16 Physician Assisted Suicide Beginning in the 1970s, terminally ill patients were given the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment to end their own life, a process commonly referred to as euthanasia. They would be taken off life support, and death would be allowed to take its natural course. This idea was controversial at first, but now a bigger issue has taken its place. Many patients claim that they reserve the right to physician assisted suicide—killing oneself with meansRead MoreEuthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide997 Words   |  4 PagesEuthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide: The Right to Die with Dignity (The Legalization, At Risk Groups, and Rebuttal) The possible legalization of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide brings concerns in regards to how well it will be accepted. There are contradictions that exists between government and church when it comes to the morals and values placed on human life. Although, society has concerns in regards to at risk community groups and the type of treatment availableRead MoreEuthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide1504 Words   |  7 Pageslegalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, we would provide â€Å"vulnerable† patients with better overall protection and health care, give patients (who are excruciatingly suffering and have no chance of recovery) the option to end their lives before they ever needed to go through such an ordeal and giving them peace of mind, and spare the families of the patients the emotional pain of watching their loved one slowly and painfully passing away. For these reasons, I believe that euthanasia and Physician-AssistedRead More Euthanasia And Physician Assisted Suicide1249 Words   |  5 Pagesview euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide not as murder or suicide, but rather a release from the pain that holds down and a quicker, less painful way to get to the end that will happen anyways. Euthanasia is becoming much more of a hot topic in the news, both here at home in the US, as well as on the global stage with the new Prime Minister of Canada pushing for a law that would allow nationwide physician assisted death. As of now only a few states have legalized physician-assisted suicide

Social Networking Sites Essay Sample free essay sample

Social networking sites ( SNSs ) such as Facebook. web logs and Twitter have grown progressively popular in recent old ages. In peculiar. Facebook has become the most visited SNS in the universe with more than 800 million active users ( Facebook. 2011. cited by Lee et Al. 2012:1036 ) . SNS can be defined as â€Å"a new method of pass oning. using computing machines as a collaborative tool to speed up group information and escalate group range and influence† ( Kane et al. 2009. cited by Lin and Lu. 2011:1152 ) . This essay will reason that although to some extent SNSs have caused concerns such as cyberbullying between striplings and privateness concerns. those web sites are still chiefly good for persons who use them by heightening societal connexion and interaction. prosecuting formal and informal acquisition chances and besides profiting users in concern countries and work topographic points. This essay will discourse both positive and negative effects from SNSs to users in s ocialising. We will write a custom essay sample on Social Networking Sites Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page instruction and work. and the decision will supply some operable suggestions for betterments. The first chief facet that significantly benefits SNSs’ users is heightening societal connexion and interaction between each other. Harmonizing to Dyrud ( 2011:475 ) . from 2009 to 2010. the clip people dedicate to socialising online increased 43 % . This addition is peculiarly associated with two signifiers of connexion. First. SNS offers multiple media for users to pass on with their current friends. such as electronic mail. instant messaging. public and private bulletin boards. and even internet phone services ( Kim et al. 2010:219 ) . This means it non merely allows immature people to remain in contact with a broad scope of offline friends and relations stingily and expeditiously. but besides positively empowers the connexions and support between older grownups. Furthermore. a friend-recommendation engine has been invented for persons to run into new friends via SNSs which may be based on the school they attended. current location or similar involvement groups ( Kim et al. 2010:219 ) . Consequently. it would look that SNS facilitate societal communicating between persons. On the other manus. it has been argued that there are several considerable hazards looking which are created by this singular addition in socializing. Online research demonstrates that 72 % of 12-17 twelvemonth olds striplings had been bullied online in the USA ( Livingstore and Brake. 2010:79 ) . It seems to be clear that peculiarly for adolescents. cyberbullying is the most common concern and it can do extended psychosocial effects. for case. â€Å"depression. anxiousness. terrible isolation and tragically suicide† ( O’Keeffe and Clarke-Pearson. 2011: 801 ) . In such state of affairss. persons might endure negative remarks from others during the usage of SNSs. and likewise after passing hour-upon-hour alone chew the fating with ocular friends they might be isolated and may hold small physical interaction in real-life ( Henty et al. 2011:71 ) . However. although there are several fr ights sing drawbacks on users. if parents supervise their children’s usage of the cyberspace. overall SNSs arguably can promote persons to go more sociable.