U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: GOP rep: 'No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment’
Source:
The Hill
URL Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/3 ... ed-to-burn-the-first-amendment
Published: Nov 30, 2016
Author: Mark Hensch
Post Date: 2016-11-30 19:10:50 by Hondo68
Keywords: Impeach Trump, scofflaw, hates BOR
Views: 110628
Comments: 265
Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) on Tuesday defended the constitutionality of flag burning, saying President-elect Donald Trump would violate freedom of speech if he cracked down on it. "Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment," Amash tweeted. Nobody should burn the American flag, but our Constitution secures our right to do so. No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment. https://t.co/nVkq6WcbHV— Justin Amash (@justinamash) November 29, 2016 Trump earlier Tuesday floated severe penalties for flag burning, mentioning loss of citizenship or a year in jail. “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” he tweeted. Trump did not specify what inspired his 7 a.m. tweet about flag burning, which is considered protected speech under U.S. law. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 that burning the American flag is allowed under the First Amendment. A spokesman for Trump on Tuesday said he agrees with Trump that the controversial act should be outlawed. “I think most Americans would agree with me that flag burning should be illegal. It’s completely despicable,” Jason Miller told CNN’s “New Day." Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) told CNN he disagrees with Trump, though. “I don’t think we want to make this a legal issue. So I disagree with Mr. Trump on that, and the court is probably right," Duffy said. “I think the court is probably right that we want to protect those people who want to protest and their right to actually demonstrate with disgracing our flag, even though so many of us who love our country and love our flag object to it.” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also split with Trump and defended flag burning as free speech. “We have a First Amendment right. We’ll protect our First Amendment. That’s what the court has upheld,” he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday. Poster Comment:
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) also split with Trump and defended flag burning as free speech
Already there are the beginnings of an impeach Trump movement in the HOR, and he hasn't even taken office yet. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' -- those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace -- are not protected by the first amendment. Burning the flag is no different than fighting words. Or, it can be argued that burning the flag is hate speech and is not protected. Or that burning the flag is "likely to incite imminent lawless action". Three reasons why burning the flag is not protected by the first amendment.
Or, it can be argued that burning the flag is hate speech and is not protected. Flag burning is a protected form of political expression. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) Texas v. Johnson No. 88-155 Argued March 21, 1989 Decided June 21, 1989 491 U.S. 397 CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS Syllabus During the 1984 Republican National Convention, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration. Held: Johnson's conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-420. (a) Under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The State conceded that the conduct was expressive. Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent. Pp. 491 U. S. 402-406. (b) Texas has not asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression and would therefore permit application of the test set forth in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, whereby an important governmental interest in regulating nonspeech can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms when speech and nonspeech elements are combined in the same course of conduct. An interest in preventing breaches of the peace is not implicated on this record. Expression may not be prohibited Page 491 U. S. 398 on the basis that an audience that takes serious offense to the expression may disturb the peace, since the Government cannot assume that every expression of a provocative idea will incite a riot, but must look to the actual circumstances surrounding the expression. Johnson's expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's policies also does not fall within the class of "fighting words" likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs. This Court's holding does not forbid a State to prevent "imminent lawless action" and, in fact, Texas has a law specifically prohibiting breaches of the peace. Texas' interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity is related to expression in this case and, thus, falls outside the O'Brien test. Pp. 491 U. S. 406-410. (c) The latter interest does not justify Johnson's conviction. The restriction on Johnson's political expression is content based, since the Texas statute is not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed to protect it from intentional and knowing abuse that causes serious offense to others. It is therefore subject to "the most exacting scrutiny." Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312. The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved. Nor may a State foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct relating to it, since the Government may not permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a limited set of messages. Moreover, this Court will not create an exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment for the American flag alone. Pp. 491 U. S. 410-422. 755 S.W.2d 92, affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 491 U. S. 420. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 491 U. S. 421. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 491 U. S. 436. Page 491 U. S. 399 JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/310/case.html United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990) After this Court held, in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, that a Texas statute criminalizing desecration of the United States flag in a way that the actor knew would seriously offend onlookers was unconstitutional as applied to an individual who had burned a flag during a political protest, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act criminalizes the conduct of anyone who "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon" a United States flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a "worn or soiled" flag. Subsequently, appellees were prosecuted in the District Courts for violating the Act: some for knowingly burning several flags while protesting various aspects of the Government's policies and others, in a separate incident, for knowingly burning a flag while protesting the Act's passage. In each case, appellees moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Act violates the First Amendment. Both District Courts, following Johnson, supra, held the Act unconstitutional as applied, and dismissed the charges. Held: Appellees' prosecution for burning a flag in violation of the Act is inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Government concedes, as it must, that appellees' flag-burning constituted expressive conduct, and this Court declines to reconsider its rejection in Johnson of the claim that flag-burning as a mode of expression does not enjoy the First Amendment's full protection. It is true that this Act, unlike the Texas law, contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Government's asserted interest in protecting the "physical integrity" of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag's status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content, of free expression. The mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol's physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government's interest is implicated only when a person's treatment of the flag communicates a message to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals. The precise language of the Act's Page 496 U. S. 311 prohibitions confirms Congress' interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction, since each of the specified terms -- with the possible exception of "burns" -- unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a focus on those acts likely to damage the flag's symbolic value, and since the explicit exemption for disposal of "worn or soiled" flags protects certain acts traditionally associated with patriotic respect for the flag. Thus, the Act suffers from the same fundamental flaw as the Texas law, and its restriction on expression cannot "be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech,'" Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 485 U. S. 320. It must therefore be subjected to "the most exacting scrutiny," id. at 485 U. S. 321, and, for the reasons stated in Johnson, supra, at 491 U. S. 413-415, the Government's interest cannot justify its infringement on First Amendment rights. This conclusion will not be reassessed in light of Congress' recent recognition of a purported "national consensus" favoring a prohibition on flag-burning, since any suggestion that the Government's interest in suppressing speech becomes more weighty as popular opposition to that speech grows is foreign to the First Amendment. While flag desecration -- like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures -- is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Pp. 496 U. S. 313-319. No. 89-1433, 731 F.Supp. 1123 (DDC 1990); No. 89-1434, 731 F.Supp. 415, affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 496 U. S. 319. Page 496 U. S. 312 Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Given the sentiments expressed by the court that you highlighted, how is it that prohibiting hate speech is constitutional?
Political speech is protected. Hate speech is not necessarily political speech and can be made for the purpose of creating a disturbance. If Donald Trump went somewhere and gave a political speech, and a bunch of rabble took umbrage and decided to riot, that does not make the speech of Donald Trump a crime. The rioters commit a criminal act.
I think that even you will admit that is one VERY blurry line.
It certainly can be. But if someone is arrested for burning a flag, it is almost guaranteed that his attorney will argue that it was political expression. It would be a real challenge to show that there was no political intent. A law prohibiting flag burning per se, prohibits political expression. Hate speech has a nebulous character. Nowadays, it seems snowflakes call anything they do not like hate speech, and they run off to their safe space.
States ban cross burning and there's no constitutional crisis. Flag burning can be banned for the same reason -- the intent is to provoke a reaction, to incite an immediate breach of the peace, or to incite imminent lawless action.
I think flag burning is protected "speech'. Even though it isn't really speech. People should be free to protest if they want to. I think people who burn American flags are assholes. I wouldn't even really care if someone kicked their ass. No it shouldn't be legal to kick their ass. But I wouldn't care if someone did.
Then our laws against hate speech and sexual harassment should be repealed. Time for everyone to suck it up.
If you don't threaten to kill someone. You should be able to say what you want. So i'm ok with that. Remember Scalia voted to allow flag burning too. If they made it illegal to burn flags. That wouldn't bother me to much either. Just saying.
There are no replies to Comment # 55. End Trace Mode for Comment # 55.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: misterwhite, hondo68 (#1)
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' -- those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace -- are not protected by the first amendment. Burning the flag is no different than fighting words.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Syllabus
#21. To: nolu chan (#6)
#40. To: misterwhite (#21)
Given the sentiments expressed by the court that you highlighted, how is it that prohibiting hate speech is constitutional?
#45. To: nolu chan (#40)
Political speech is protected. Hate speech is not necessarily political speech and can be made for the purpose of creating a disturbance.
#47. To: sneakypete (#45)
I think that even you will admit that is one VERY blurry line.
#52. To: nolu chan (#47)
"A law prohibiting flag burning per se, prohibits political expression."
#53. To: misterwhite (#52)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#53)
"I think flag burning is protected "speech'.
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
Then our laws against hate speech and sexual harassment should be repealed. Time for everyone to suck it up.
Replies to Comment # 55.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]