Ban Flag Burning Ban Everything Essay Research free essay sample

Ban Flag Burning, Ban Everything? Essay, Research Paper Ban Flag Burning, Ban Everything? Citizens # 8217 ; right to flag firing should non be deprived, as there is nil bastard in rule about making so for the intent of showing one # 8217 ; s dissent from authorities Torahs or patterns. This is their cardinal right of making everything they please, every bit long as it does non conflict on the rights of others. The Supreme Court, the umpire of the federal system, has already ruled many times in favour of the action that is protected by the First Amendment # 8211 ; the freedom of address. Congress has besides repeatedly, four times exactly, rejected measures about such affairs. The ultimate ground is because prohibiting citizens to fire the flag is unconstitutional. In the well-known Texas V. Johnson instance, Supreme Court determined that what Gregory Johnson did ( fire a flag ) was expressive behavior, protected by the Constitution, and his actions did non represent contending words. We will write a custom essay sample on Ban Flag Burning Ban Everything Essay Research or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Since non all violative behavior will motivate a public violence or upset the peace, the authorities may non criminalize certain types expressive behavior merely because they may hold such effects. The bulk of Judgess besides made the celebrated quotation mark, if there is a bedrock rule underlying the First Amendment, it is that the authorities may non forbid the look of an thought merely because society finds the thought itself violative or disagreeable. The hateful behaviours of Ku Klux Klan are no uncertainty distasteful and disgusting, but we still digest them. It is because we know downright if Marches and presentations were non allowed, we would neer hold seen the success of the civil rights motions. Americans live in a state whose Constitution guarantees to protect her citizens # 8217 ; rights. As Senator Ted Kennedy said, The words of the first amendment are simple and olympian: Congress shall do no jurisprudence foreshortening freedom of address. The proposed constitutional amendment [ forbiding flag combustion ] would sabotage that cardinal autonomy. The unsafe portion of go throughing such a jurisprudence is that it is non about devastation of physical belongings, but tells people how to believe and move. Because one does non like the thought about firing the national icon, this does non intend he or she can coerce others to halt, as the icon itself represents freedom. Freedom is a rule this state was founded on. If persons are non allowed to protest in a manner merely because it is non preferred to others, it is easy to destruct the rules of America. That is what really undermines the significances of the symbol. No wonder Bush s secretary of province, Colin Powell, a reti red four-star general who opposed the step in 1999 said, I would non amend that great shield of democracy to hammer a few reprobates. The flag will be winging long after they have slunk off. Some oppositions think it is merely disrespectful and provocative to fire the flag. This is likely their strongest and merely statement. Surely, it is disrespectful or even hideous ; it is besides non a suited manner to protest. However, it is non a converting ground to censor an activity that does non conflict on others # 8217 ; rights. All it does is to upset some groups because they find that violative. And cipher has a right to halt persons from non esteeming him or her. The Supreme Court one time stated, # 8220 ; One adult male # 8217 ; s lewdness is another adult male # 8217 ; s lyric. # 8221 ; If Torahs can be passed merely because something hurts person # 8217 ; s feelings, one can barely make anything in this state. For case, the provocative and contemptuous wordss of those popular rappers are truly violative, but this state endures them because this is the ground why we like it. It is pathetic to set person in gaol because he or she burns a piece of fabric ( non to advert that is his or her ain belongings ) . Laws based on emotions are ever unsafe. If the motivation of set uping an anti-flag combustion jurisprudence is to punish the desecraters, there is a high possibility that there may be a jurisprudence prohibiting rupturing the flag someday. Furthermore, even if there is a regulation prohibiting them to perpetrate the desecration, it does non do them go more reverent to the flag. But one thing for certain is that the jurisprudence will efficaciously destroy the spirit of freedom. I wonder how great it will be to hold a jurisprudence that does us nil good but merely brings up more struggles. The really first measure of puting up such a jurisprudence may take to a chain-reaction doing the passing of more and more pathetic Torahs. If there is a jurisprudence prohibiting firing the flag today, there may be a jurisprudence prohibiting rupturing it tomorrow be cause of discourtesy. What one should make is to understand the true significances of the symbol, but non blindly idolise it. A piece of fabric is meaningless. What are of import are its thoughts, which can non be burned or removed. If the symbol is more of import than what it represents, so the flag is blasphemed, is abused. This state does non necessitate the bulk to order what the minorities should make, and neither do the heroes who risked their lives to contend for the national icon. ( I have talked with some veterans about this issue ; and surprisingly plenty, unlike what most people think that they must welcome the flag-burning jurisprudence, the bulk of them, merely like General Powell, do non see it as a good thought. ) It is excessively much a cost to give the spirit of the Red, White and Blue for the interest of physical worship.