Majority Opinion-Texas Why would Johnson want to burn something as treasured as our American Flag? The American Flag`s value as a symbol is something that cannot be measured. In Texas, there is a law that states that you cannot burn the American Flag, because it taints the vision of the pride and respect that people see for the flag. So the majority opinion of this court is to uphold the decision of Texas because,” the value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured,” it could cause riots and hardships, and burning the flag tarnishes its view for the people who cherish the idea of the flag flying high. The American flag is a symbol that every American is proud of, it also represents the ideas of liberty and equality.
In June 21, 1973, Miller was convicted on the ground of advertising the sale of what was considered by the court as adult material. He was found guilty as he broke the California Statute. The California Statute forbids citizens from spreading what is considered offensive in societal standards. The question that was being asked was that if the action of Miller was Constitution thus is protected under the law. However, he lost the case due to a vote of 5 - 4.
The law states that is freedom of speech to burn our American Flag, but how is stomping and burning the symbol of this nation where our freedom of speech should be. Most do it out of anger toward our country, but why do they have to take such drastic measures to show their anger. Wattad stated” grant the flag special respect.” ( 1, 2008) It's not saying take away freedom of speech just grant something that represents what our soldiers are fighting for special respect. So if someone would burn the American flag than they would be punished not given a warning and let go. However, even though it might make a grown man cry to see this it doesn’t even come close to how a soldier who have fought for this symbol must
Reynolds defines hate speech as something that is very difficult to define because there is never going to be an idea or opinion that everybody agrees with without any contradiction. He states that hate speech is “meaningless” and is just a form of speech that people contradict. He parallels hate speech to “racist, sexist, or poor in taste”, but doesn 't explicitly say that hate speech is exactly that. Additionally, Reynolds says that fighting words are not considered hate speech, but rather an allurement to fight one-on-one. Reynolds is basically saying that there is no such of a thing as hate speech because all speech is protected whether it is homophobic, racist, sexist etc.
Therefore, when mentioning the burning of the American flag, the action is fully supported under freedom of speech and expression. It is also because of the first amendment, that I believe the government should maintain the right of the individuals to express their dissatisfaction with the government, through the act of flag burning and not amend the constitution to make such right illegal. Though many people may see the burning of the flag as a disrespectful notion towards the nation, it can be considered a way of expression. As stated in the United States Constitution “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people…”. The First Amendment
The thirteenth amendment in the Declaration of Independence ended slavery and the fourteenth Amendment ended slavery in essence. These legislations are set in place however racism is a reoccurring theme in America especially in recent months with President Trump in power. President Trump has a number of motions in place to prohibit individuals from certain races access into America. In situations similar to this it can be difficult for the state to ban racist advertisements when the president holds a huge amount of power. Trump has encouraged mainly his supporters to act out vocally and physically which is becoming increasingly concerning.
Washington chose to enforce the ban as it is rationally related to a state interest, therefore related to the exercise of its police powers. In my opinion, Washington 's ban on physician assisted-suicide did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment 's Due Process Clause. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two main aspects: the protection of our nation 's objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington 's ban was rationally related to the state 's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above
If the Jim Crow law was plausible, then it will make no sense to arrest Homer Plessy. It was said that after Homer was escorted off the train, the committee hired a private detective with arrest powers to detain Plessy, to ensure he was charged for violating the Separate Car Act. Meaning that they do not want blacks to gain vocals, so they hired a private detective to make sure this situation will never occur
Advancements are made through negotiations and other forms of protest rather than the destruction of property. The right to protest is one that is a basic human right ;however, the right to protest does not allow for the destruction of property. As Martin Luther King Jr. states in Letters from Birmingham City Jail, I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends (King 197). Arguments because destruction of property brings awareness to the protest s cause are not defensible and merely trite excuses for illegal behavior. The need for destruction only brings forth flaws in the movements.
This paper will attempt to demonstrate the positive aspects of Colin Kaepernick’s protest during the national anthem. I understand that this is a controversial topic, and many people do not condone Kaepernick’s behavior. However, this paper will provide research as to how Colin Kaepernick’s behavior has brought positive changes throughout society. Colin Kaepernick, now a free agent, was a former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers. In the 2016 NFL season, Kaepernick made a political statement by taking a knee during the national anthem.