Continuously serving Kosciusko County since 1854
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
- Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Texas vs. Johnson, 1989.
*****
The case of Texas vs. Johnson was one of the more controversial cases in the American legal system. It questioned whether an individual can be legally prosecuted for burning the American flag as a means of political protest.
In their decision that burning the American flag is a Constitutionally protected form of expression, the court said the First Amendment literally forbids the abridgement only of "speech," but the court has long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word.
Gregory Lee Johnson, the burner of the flag and the man in the center of all the controversy, was being intentionally and overwhelmingly expressive in his political conduct, the Court said. No disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's flag burning. His expressive conduct does not fall within the small class of "fighting words" that are "likely to provoke the average person to retaliate, and thereby cause a breach of peace." Therefore, the Court said, the state's interest in maintaining order is not implicated on the facts.
Most importantly, the Court held Johnson was not prosecuted for the expression of just any idea, he was prosecuted for his expression of dissatisfaction with the policies of the country, which is the core of First Amendment guarantees. (First Amendment Cases and Materials, 2nd ed., William W. Van Alstyne).
*****
There are many individuals, groups and politicians who want to start tearing away at the American people's guaranteed First Amendment rights by establishing another Constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning. If passed, it will be the first amendment in the Constitution that takes away a right since the 18th Amendment (prohibition), which was later repealed by the 21st Amendment.
American soldiers did not fight in the American Revolution, the Civil War, World War I and World War II, and the Vietnam and Korean wars so that the government can prohibit speech. If so, why fight the wars? Those soldiers fought in the wars to protect the very freedom that is found in flag burning - speech - as well as the rest of the Constitution.
Even though paying respect to the flag is also paying respect to the men and women who died for this country, allowing free political speech is paying more respect because it demonstrates those soldiers did not die in vain. The freedoms they fought for still thrive.
If an amendment is to be placed in the Constitution prohibiting flag burning, what is next? How about an amendment prohibiting remarks against the president?
During President Clinton's impeachment and trial, more remarks were made against Clinton than for him. If flag burning is prohibited, then remarks against the president are prohibited, how will Americans voice their political opposition?
While I am not one to go out and burn an American flag, I still want that right should the occasion arise where I feel the best way for me to politically express myself would be to burn the American flag.
Some Americans may feel the campaign in Kosovo is already an event worth protesting against the government. Some are already actively protesting. If they choose to burn the flag in protest of the Kosovo campaign, they are not saying they are anti-American. They are saying, "We do not support the government's decisions in Kosovo."
It is understandable how those who served in the line of duty may want to protect the red, white and blue, but prohibiting free speech is not the answer.
As Brennan said, "The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong."
As a member of the media, I rely on the First Amendment to report the news, express my views and also be made aware of the news I do not cover myself. To be a journalist and be for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning would be like a gun owner being for an amendment prohibiting guns.
There are those in the United States federal government, as well as local government, who would like to see people with fewer rights to make their job easier. They would be able to get away with more misdeeds and make a few extra dollars along the way.
Today, they will take away a right in the name of protecting the American flag. Another right will disappear tomorrow in the name of protecting the president. Then senators and governors. Then mayors. Government decisions. Businesses. Public schools.
The best way to honor our veterans is not to prohibit flag burning and not to allow government to stop us from expressing ourselves.
The best way to honor veterans is to make the decision not to burn a flag on your own. Even a greater way is to place your hand over your heart when the national anthem or the pledge of allegiance begins.
When's the last time an entire crowd did that?
