Banning Flag Burning - Thesis Proposal Example

Banning Flag Burning Flag desecration is a term used to de any insult or damage to the official flag of a nation. Acts of desecration may include flag burning, or using the flag for inappropriate commercial purposes. Over the years, flag burning has been used as a means of protest against certain government policies. This has evoked some rather sharp and intense reactions from all over the country, reactions that have stirred up the widespread debate regarding the issue. The national flag of a country is one of its most revered and respected symbols. And thus, flag burning is seen as a huge insult to the very integrity of the nation. Not only has the issue invoked strong opposition from the masses, it has also found itself at the center of a fiery political dispute. The debate surrounding the issues is often based on the premise of protection of national symbol on one hand, and the protection of free speech and liberty on the other. Flag burning - A History The sensitive and volatile issue of flag burning originally surfaced in 1897 when the American Flag Association was created to formulate laws which would protect spirit of the national flag. This association assisted in the establishment of the State Flag Desecration Laws, wherein 48 states passed laws banning flag desecration. The first Federal Flag Protection Act was passed by the Congress in 1968, as a response to flag burning after the Vietnam war. (United States Senate). But the implications of this act were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States under the Texas v Johnson case in 1990. The Court declared that defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Goldstein) Following this judgement, the government again proposed a new Flag Protection Act, but even this act was invalidated by the Supreme Court in the United States v. Eichman case in 1990. Since then, acts intending to ban flag desecration have been introduced time and again but have failed to materialise. The most recent attempt to adopt a flag desecration amendment lost in the United States Senate by one vote in 2006. (Braithwaite) Flag burning- the Debate John Greenleaf Whittier, the influential American poet once wrote "Shoot if you must, this old grey head, but spare your country's flag" (Wagenknecht). The above lines perfectly capture the symbolic significance of the national flag. The flag is the most visible emblem of the country and is a reminder of the people who sacrificed their lives for the country. If one were to fully understand what the flag essentially stands for, it would become pretty evident that any act of insult to the flag is but blasphemous. Opposition to the banning of flag burning have been grounded on the premises of freedom of expression and speech. It has been argued that defacing the national flag is justified as a means of protected speech, a claim that is vindicated by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the USA. But one needs to understand the gravity of the situation. It is this very flag which stands as a tall symbol of the freedom guaranteed to every citizen of USA. People's protests are meant against the government, not the country. A clear distinction needs to be made between the government, which merely runs the country, and the nation itself. A nation, in all its essence, is greater than the political party in power. And thus, grave offence to a highly esteemed symbolic entity in the name of protest, does not do justice to the nation. More often than not, these protests are aimed at a political leader and his policies, and there are several alternative methods to exhibit public disapproval in such cases. Burning effigies of the leader in question is still justified, but burning the national flag is not only inappropriate, it also fails to serve the purpose. Flag burning is often defended on the grounds of civil liberties granted by the democratic governmental setup. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, not vandalism. One can convincingly say that the idea of freedom has been manipulated and extrapolated unnecessarily. Not only that, acts of flag desecration often incite violence and hostility, thus disturbing the peaceful environment . Though the political opinion regarding this issue has been divided, many prominent leaders have strongly opposed any act of flag desecration. Hillary Clinton, newly appointed Secretary of State supports making flag burning illegal without the introduction of the Flag Desecration Amendment. (Cohen 33) Legal Cases Owing to its politically sensitive nature, the issue of flag desecration has remained enveloped in several court cases. The earliest of them was possibly encountered during the American Civil War when the military governor, Benjamin Franklin Butler, sentenced a man to death for removing an American Flag (Kurtis 103). But today, nearly 150 years later, it is considerably difficult to find cases where acts of flag desecration have been deemed illegal. As there are no absolute laws which deem flag burning illegal, the courts have often found it difficult to prosecute acts of flag desecration. The two most popular cases of flag burning have been Texas v. Johnson, and United States v. Eichman both in the year 1990. And in both the aforementioned cases, the Supreme court declared that flag burning was protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. But there have been other acts of flag desecration that have ended in conviction. It is rather interesting to note that the cases which did in fact end in conviction involved milder forms of flag desecration like using the flag for commercial purposes. In one such case Halter v. Nebraska, the owner of a bottling company was charged with selling bottles with the American flag imprinted on them in 1905. In 1903, Nebraska made it a crime to "sell, expose for sale, or have in possession for sale, any article of merchandise upon which shall have been printed or placed, for purposes of advertisement, a representation of the flag of the United States". Under this law, the Supreme court ruled 8-1 to uphold Halter's conviction. This case was significant for a variety of reasons- it was one of the first Supreme court cases pertaining to protection of the national flag, and also because it was seen as a moral victory for people who sought greater government regulation in the matter. (Schlaffer 123) Thus, we see that the paucity of clear laws has hindered the prosecution of several acts of flag burning. But there is absolutely no doubt that burning the national flag of the United States of America is not only morally culpable, it is also unpatriotic. By causing any injury to the flag, people are actually destroying the freedom that it stands for. It is a disgrace to all the people who envisioned America as the land of dreams. It is also an insult to the armed forces for they are the people who are willing to sacrifice their lives to preserve the integrity of this very flag. It is rather unfortunate that these offensive acts have been justified in the name of freedom of speech and civil liberties for one needs to understand that every liberty comes with a duty, a duty to uphold the values that a nation stands for. Freedom is meant to be used resourcefully, not exploited unnecessarily. And burning the most visible symbol of one's country does not classify as expression of freedom, it can only classify as sheer vandalism. Works Cited Braithwaite, David. "Flag Burner Should be Jailed". The Sydney Morning Herald. 23 Aug 2006 Cohen, Richard. "Star Spangled Pandering". Washington Post. 15 Dec 2005. " Flag Protection: A Brief History and Summary of Recent Supreme Court Decisions and Proposed Constitutional Amendment." United States Senate. 19 Feb 2009. Goldstein, Robert Justin. Flag Burning and Free Speech: The Case of Texas v. Johnson'. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2000. Kurtis, Micheal. The Constitution and the Flag. Wasington: Routledge, 1993. Schlaffer, S. "Constitutional Law. State Statute. Desecration of National Flag. Halter v. Nebraska". The Yale Law Journal 17.2 "(1907): 123 Wagenknecht, Edward. John Greenleaf Whittier: A Portrait in Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967 Read More