Desecration_of_the_American_Flag

Desecration of the American Flag The American Flag is one of the most recognizable symbols our nation has. Though, the flag itself may merely be a piece of cloth sewn together, it represents a lot more for the American people. It stands for and represents democracy and freedom. Freedom that countless of men and women throughout history have stood up, fought for, and even given up their lives for. Out of pride, most display it proudly publically and in their private homes. While most patriots would display the flag, there are those that will desecrate it. To those individuals, the flag represents a disapproval of the actions the government is currently taking. The question that arises is whether or not people should be allowed to desecrate the flag because of what it may currently represent or actually ban the act due to the flag’s symbolism. Flag desecration can be a hotly debated issue with both sides having valid arguments to support their side. On one side, there are those that want to protect the act as it represents freedom of speech. On the other side, you have your pro-American citizens that cannot stand to witness what they consider to be un-American. Flag desecration consists of the intentional destruction or alteration of the national flag. In most cases, burning the flag in a public manner showing a disdain of the government is what most people see as flag desecration. When Gregory Lee Johnson burned the flag protesting the policies of the Reagan administration, he was sentenced with one year in jail and was fined $2,000 because under Texan Law, the desecration of the flag was illegal (www.oyez.org). He was thrown in jail and fined because it was an offensive act to many since the flag represents a lot. In other cases, even alterations to the flag have been disputed as acts of desecration. For example, a college student, Harold Spence, was convicted for hanging the flag upside down with a peace symbol attached under the state’s “improper use” statute. He was protesting the invasion in Cambodia and the shootings at Kent State University (www.law.umkc.edu). In both cases, the Supreme Court ruled for the defendants as their acts were protected under the First Amendment. In Texas vs. Johnson, the Supreme Court “found that Johnsons, actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature” (www.oyez.org). Just because the public found it offensive, it does not mean that this form of expression should be prohibited. In its decision in Spence vs. Washington, the Court recognized that flags are a form of symbolism comprising of a “primitive but effective way of communicating ideas” (www.law.umkc.edu). In essence, the Supreme Court’s argument is that burning the flag or altering it is a form of speech. Under the First Amendment, the freedom of speech is a protected right. With both of these cases and numerous others, Congress has, on numerous occasions, attempted to pass amendments that would authorize any persons committing such acts to be punished, but have always fallen short. The proposed amendment states, “The Congress and the states shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States” (www.usflag.org). Arguments for and against the Flag Protection Act have been presented. Supporters of the Flag Protection Act argue that it is necessary to protect the flag due to its symbolism. The flag itself is one of the most important and respected symbols the United States has. Thus the desecration of the flag is an extremely offensive act towards all of its citizens. William Rehnquist, one of the judges that filed a dissenting opinion in the Texas vs. Johnson case stated that, It [American Flag] does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas…Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag... (www.law.umkc.edu) Rehnquist clearly showed his disapproval of the court’s close decision, which went in favor of Johnson. He believed that flag burning serves to provoke and insult others. In essence, it dishonors all those that have served and fought for the US, its ideals, and the flag. By protecting the flag, the sacrifice made by all who have fought for it is preserved and honored at the same time. Challengers to the Flag Protection Act argue that burning or altering the flag is a protected right under the First Amendment as it is a form of speech. It may not be a very popular act with the public, but as it falls under speech, it must be protected. “Our democracy is strong because we tolerate all…forms of expression, no matter how…much we disagree. If we take away the right to dissent—no matter how unpopular—what freedom will be sacrificed next (ACLU)'” If the act should ever pass, the Bill of Rights would be changed for the first time in history. Who knows what consequences the country will be dealing with as a result' Arguers against the act also note that flag burning is also a rare act. It only occurs during significant times in the country, such as wars or during troubled times. They also point out flag burners do not burn the flag because they hate America. The flag is burned because people do not approve of the actions the government is taking. They want to be heard and they resort to this act because it may be the only way they can be heard. “A protestor burns a flag in response to a given issue or incident. The act of burning merely signifies the importance of the issue, it is not the issue itself” (Debatepedia). This is what the First Amendment was written for; to protect this form of speech. People will get offended by the act, but it is not good enough of a reason to go against one of the most important principals in the American democracy. The Bill of Rights must be protected as the American system of government depends on it. When first learning about this assignment, I thought it would be an easy thing as I am a very patriotic American Soldier who has served in the Army for nearly ten years and who truly loves his country. I have the colors in my home and look at them fondly every day. I could never imagine doing anything to disrespect or dishonor the American Flag much less burning it. However, after completing the interactive learning module on the Center on Congress at Indiana University website, I have a new respect for the opposing view. I still believe that burning the American Flag is wrong and will never take part in it. I have never been exposed to it first hand and hope to never be involved. However, if I happen to be involved in an event in which someone decides to desecrate the flag, I would do anything within my means to stop it. Personally, I feel a sense of pride whenever I see the American Flag but I also understand and believe in what it stands for. As a Soldier, I have an understanding that no Soldier goes to war willing to die for a flag. Soldiers go to war willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for what it stand for. I, in no way approve of the act of burning the flag as it is an unintelligent way of expressing one’s feelings. I do believe that it is a protected right given to all Americans under the First Amendment. As long as they are not damaging private property of infringing on others’ rights, it should not be banned simply because it is shocking and distasteful to the majority. The damage done to our freedom of speech would far outweigh the benefits of punishing those with poor taste. The act of burning the flag is simply a challenge to our government. The ability to challenge and protest the government is an important right people have in this country. If our elected officials are not living up to the promises they made to the people prior to taking office, then they must be challenged.