Flag Burning And Free Speech

When Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as part of a political protest, he was convicted for flag desecration under Texas law. But the Supreme Court, by a contentious 5 to margin, overturned that conviction, claiming that Johnson's action constituted symbolic -- and thus protected -- speech. Heated debate continues to swirl around that controversial decision, both hailed as a victory for free speech advocates and reviled as an abomination that erodes the patriotic foundations of American democracy. Such passionate yet contradictory views are at the heart of this landmark case. Book jacket.

In 1989 a political fire storm erupted after the United States Supreme Court declared that dissidents had the constitutional right under the First Amendment to burn the flag. To some, including President George Bush and many members of Congress, the flag was a sacred symbol of American freedoms. They believed its physical destruction posed a serious threat to the country and demanded a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court's decision. For those who defended the Court's ruling, flag desecration was a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and any attempt to forbid such conduct was seen as creating a dangerous precedent. Burning the Flag brings together the disciplines of law, journalism, political science, and history to explain and place the development of the controversy in its full context. It is based on extensive research in legal, congressional, and journalistic sources and on exclusive interviews with nearly 100 of the key players in the dispute, among them flag burners, judges, lawyers and lobbyists on both sides, members of Congress, congressional aides, and journalists. A timely addendum chronicles the late 1995 attempts once again to pass a constitutional amendment on flag desecration, adding to the significance of this readable account. Burning the Flag will be of value to both an academic and a general audience, particularly to civil libertarians, flag buffs, and those interested in popular media, American politics, modern American history, and constitutional law.

When a group of protesters assembled outside the Republican National Convention, they were expressing their dissatisfaction with the American political system. However, when Joey Johnson set the American flag on fire, it sparked a controversy that made its way to the Supreme Court. Flag burning, in this case, was seen as a protected from of expression.

Responses to flag burning as a particular form of street protest tend to polarize into two camps: one holding the view that action of this sort is constitutionally protected protest; the other, that it is subversive and criminal activity. In this well-researched and richly documented volume, Welch examines the collision of these ideologies, and shows the relevance of sociological concepts to a deeper understanding of such forms of protest. In exploring social control of political protest in the United States, this volume embarks on an in-depth examination of flag desecration and efforts to criminalize that particular form of dissent. It seeks to examine the sociological process facilitating the criminalization of protest by attending to moral enterprises, civil religion, authoritarian aesthetics, and the ironic nature of social control. Flag burning is a potent symbolic gesture conveying sharp criticism of the state. Many American believe that flag desecration emerged initially during the Vietnam War era, but the history of this caustic form of protest can be traced to the period leading up to the Civil War. The act of torching Old Glory differs qualitatively from other forms of defiance. With this distinction in mind, attempts to penalize and deter flag desecration transcend the utilitarian function of regulating public protest. Despite popular claims that American society is built on genuine consensus, the flag-burning controversy brings to light the contentious nature of U.S. democracy and its ambivalence toward free expression. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is often viewed as one of the more unpopular additions to the Bill of Rights. One constitutional commentator underscores this point by noting that the First Amendment gives citizens the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Flag Burning is a well-written, informative volume suitable for courses in deviance, social problems, social movements, mass communication, criminology, and political science, as well as in sociology of law and legal studies.

This volume discusses existing amendments and amendment proposals.

Learn about the famous landmark decision concerning freedom of speech and flag burning.

During World War II, American children who were Jehovah's Witnesses refused to salute the flag because it conflicted with their religion. In this riveting book, award-winning author Susan Dudley Gold delves into the issues behind the Supreme Court case. An impressive victory for the First Amendment, especially in time of war, the decision established that government cannot compel Americans to participate in symbolic speech such as a flag salute. Although the case involved members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the decision embraced freedom of expressions as well as freedom of religion.