There is a proposed amendment to make flag burning up illegal. Congress attempted to pass the Flag Cover Function of 1989, however the act failed since it is seen as a kind of public protection. There have been other endeavors to complete legislation to safeguard the American flag but all the makes an attempt have failed so far.
Flag using is very controversial because folks have different definitions of what "freedom of talk" means and what our flag stands for. This essay explores these definitions from the proponent's viewpoint for a law protecting the flag and the opponents view point against such a law. The best debated question being asked at this time is: is flag getting rid of safeguarded under the First Amendment guaranteeing the freedom of talk? It all depends upon what sort of person defines the flag and interprets the First Amendment.
In order to help answer this question let's being by defining just what a flag is. The proponents (veterans, Citizens Flag Alliance, and other organizations of the type) of the amendment for protection of the flag define the flag as a "cultural artifact with meaning significance, and use determined by the particular system employing it (Guenter 18). " Some flag historians have regarded the impact of culture on the shifting significance and utilization of the nationwide banner, although nobody has ventured a full-scale probe of the subject (Guenter 16). The flag initially was a symbol of freedom and enlightenment. The flag design has even changed. The very first flag covered thirteen stars which were in a group with the red and white stripes. As the nation grew so does the flag, before flag became what we know from it today.
The proponents also feel that, the flag should never be used for advertising purposes in virtually any manner whatsoever (www. legion. org/flagcode. htm). It will not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and so on, printed or otherwise impressed in writing napkin or bins or whatever is created for temporary use and discard (www. legion. org/flagcode. htm). Advertising indicators should not be fastened to an employee or halyard that the flag is flown. No area of the flag should ever be utilized as a costume or athletic uniform (www. legion. org/falgcode. htm).
However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military staff, firemen, policemen, and customers of patriotic organizations. The flag signifies a living country and is also itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica should be worn on the left lapel near to the center (www. legion. org/flagcode. htm).
The American flag is known through out the globe as symbolic of freedom, wealth, and even enlightenment. The American flag is because our (USA) revolt against Britain.
The opponent's view of the flag is evidently different. The opponents of this amendment define a flag like the New American Webster Handy College or university Dictionary. Which says, "a flag is a bit of cloth bearing a design for screen as a signal, standard, etc. (286). " Based on the opponents of the amendment a flag is merely the rectangular little bit of material that has superstars and stripes onto it. Excluding clothing, hats, napkins, and any item that contains the red, white, and blue colors with actors and stripes.
The proponents of the amendment identify the flag as any piece of material that is agent of the design that people (modern culture) know as a flag. As the opponents of the amendment believe the flag is just the piece of material that is good for display purposes, viewed as a standard. The two sides of the argument have evidently identified their positions yet they neglect to be specific. Both aspect of this controversy turn to the First Amendment for clarification.
In the first amendment of the American constitution it claims, "Congress shall make no regulation respecting an establishment of religious beliefs, or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the folks peaceable to assemble, and to petition the federal government for a redress of grievances (Constitution of the United States). "
The proponents of the flag burning amendment believe that the getting rid of of a flag does not fall under the safety of the First amendment. Associated with because using up a flag is not an expression of conversation but instead an act. Regarding Texas V. Johnson, Chief Justice William Rehnquist explained that "flag burning up is the same as an inarticulate grunt or roar that is. . . most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others (Stephens & Scheb 446). " He also goes on to state, "the flag is the symbol of our Land, a uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag using (Stephens & Scheb 446). "
According to the opponents of the flag getting rid of amendment, this amendment not only pertains to pure talk but writing also. Somewhat, the opponents of the flag using up amendment believe that the Fist Amendment potentially protects communication of any sort. Protest, demonstrations, performances, advertisements, artistic endeavors-all of the are ambit of expression. Simply the First Amendment protects communication regardless of what its characteristics or medium. Will this imply that our right to free speech is total?
A good example that would coincide with this meaning is the Gregory Johnson circumstance that happened in Texas. In 1984, a guy known as Gregory Johnson stood beyond the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas publicly burnt an American Flag. He was prosecuted under a Texas law prohibiting flag burning. The case proceeded to go all the way to the Supreme Court docket. The Supreme Courtroom ruled that the Texas law was unconstitutional. There reasoning behind this ruling was the actual fact that it was a form of protest.
The opponents of the flag using up amendment attended to these definitions as a way to distinguish just what a flag is and what it is not. The Supreme Judge has not specifically looked at the topic subject of "symbolic speech". The opponents of this amendment believe that just because the amendment says, "Congress shall make no laws" doesn't make the assertion is total. The Supreme Judge may restrict the freedom of conversation just on the premise of what influence it (the act or expression) may have (Epstein & Walker pg. 204). The coverage of the first amendment regarding to Stephens and Scheb, the safety of the First Amendment is not limited by pure conversation (444). "Symbolic conversation" can be employed to a number of nonverbal communication that is at the mercy of First amendment protection (Stephens/Scheb 444).
Throughout the sixties there have been many nonverbal protests contrary to the war. They were guarded under the First amendment because of symbolic speech reasoning. A good example of this is from the Supreme Judge circumstance Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community College Region (1969). This case is an exemplory case of this due to a dark-colored armband that was worn to school as a "less defiant" form of protest to the Vietnam Warfare. Another example of symbolic conversation is the using of a draft credit card. Inside the same year (1969) the Supreme Court docket centered on the verbal appearance alternatively than symbolic talk.
Once again the definition and the interpretation of the First Amendment verify that this concern is difficult to solve. The proponents believe that it is a way to preserve the values that America stands for, but the opponents believe that this amendment will hinder their privileges as citizens of America. Which area is right? I assume it is up to each folks (citizens of America) to decide what we feel is right and take a stand upon this issue.
For further perception into this controversial theme I conducted a study of fifty school students. The students ranged in get older from 18 to 40. The students surveyed were from a number of ethnic origins, and different backgrounds. The review contains six questions that inquired about the public's views on the proposed Flag Using Amendment. According to the survey, 65% of men and women polled said an amendment which makes losing a flag illegitimate is a violation of the First Amendment. Lots of the responses acquired the same reasoning behind the answer, "if that is just what a person believes than it is shielded. " While 90% of these surveyed responded that they sensed no sense of cover for the flag while declaring the pledge of allegiance.
The results of the study are interesting. It would appear that most people oppose the suggested amendment. Which leads people right back to the beginning, what is this is of freedom of talk and exactly what does our flag are a symbol of? The issue of flag burning up will continue for a while, however in order to comprehend the problem one must take time to really think about what they have confidence in and what they feel is right. It is merely through action that people (humans) are able to change the ills of the world. If we change the world by protecting the flag or burning the flag we (citizens of the united states) possess the rights and freedoms to do such. America is about freedom and happiness; we should take a lesson from the past and make an effort to strive for freedom and enjoyment, so that people can become a much better nation.
