Use the following to complete the questions at the bottom.

"Civil liberties" concern basic guarantees and freedoms that are protected from government
interference.
"Civil rights" are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment under the law. They are
guaranteed by government through laws protecting various categories of people such as race, age ;etc .

Judicial restraint: Judicial restraint holds that judicial review should be used sparingly by the Court and that
elected officials should make policy decisions.

Judicial Activism: Judicial activism asserts that the Court has both the right and the obligation to overturn
bad precedents and promote socially desirable goals.

In their attempt to draw the line separating permissible from impermissible speech, judges
have had to balance freedom of expression against competing values like
Public order
National security
and the right to a fair trial
Today we are going to look at a court case involving burning of the American Flag: I want you to consider the
above definitions when you answer questions.

A burning question: Whether flag burning constitutes "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.
A Burning Discontent
The presidential election of 1984 had something in common with all other presidential elections: People
disagreed about who the next president should be. Ronald Reagan was finishing up four years as president
and was running for re-election. He was a popular president, but there were many who disagreed with his
ideas. One of these people was Gregory Johnson. In Dallas, Texas in the summer of 1984, Johnson joined a
group of protestors outside the Republican National Convention, where Reagan was set to be nominated as
the Republican presidential candidate. Standing in front of the Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on
an American flag and set it on fire. He was then arrested under a Texas law that prohibited desecration of a
venerated object. At trial, Johnson was sentenced to a year in prison and fined $2,000.

The Argument:
Johnson: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids laws that would limit citizens freedom of
speech. Johnson argued that the Texas law did exactly that: Burning a flag, he argued, was a form of speech
that should be protected by the First Amendment.

For the State of Texas: Flag burning as a means of political expression enjoys no protection under the 1st
Amendment. Protecting the physical integrity of the flag and other "sacred objects," such as the State flag,
cemeteries, and public monuments, is an appropriate use of the State's police power. There are many other
less controversial ways for Johnson to express his displeasure with the government. Texas did not contest or
reject his right to make protests, only the means with which he chose to do so. Burning an American flag has
no more protection under the 1st Amendment than "fighting words" have.

Decision: The Supreme Court agreed 5-4. Many times before, the Court had already said that speech is not
limited to words. Conduct can also be speech if it is intended to send a message. The fact that Johnsons
conduct involved an American flag only made it more obvious that he was trying to send a message: Johnson
was not prosecuted for the expression of just any idea; he was prosecuted for his expression of
dissatisfaction with the policies of this country, and that kind of expression is at the core of our First
Amendment values.
The Court made it clear that even though some people were seriously offended by the flag burning speech,
that didnt make it okay to limit the speech. Instead, the Court said that a principal function of free speech
under our system of government is to invite dispute. Ultimately, the Court said, Johnsons political
expression was restricted because of the content of the message he conveyed. The majority noted that
freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not
justification for suppressing free speech. That is exactly what the First Amendment forbids.

So What?
Most people arent going to go out and burn a flag. But at some point, most of us will have ideas and opinions
that some people will find offensive. Does the government have the right to decide what opinions are too
offensive to express? The answer is no. This case reinforced citizens right to express ideas even if those ideas
are extremely upsetting to some people. The Constitution guarantees people the freedom to hold and express
whatever views they wish, about our government or the flag or anything else.

Different Views.
Not all of the Justices agreed that the First Amendment should protect burning the flag. Four Justices
dissented, saying that the flag should be protected.

Writing for the dissent, Justice Stevens argued that the flag's unique status as a symbol of national unity
outweighed "symbolic speech" concerns, and thus, the government could lawfully prohibit flag burning.

1. Does the State or the nation have an overriding interest in compelling respect for the American
flag? Why? What is your opinion of this decision? I believe that the state has an overriding interest in
compelling respect for the American flag rather than the state due to the flag being a symbol of our
unity more than anything.
2. Many citizens argue that flag burning is not "symbolic speech." What do you think symbolic
speech is? Do you think symbolic speech is and ought to be protected under the 1st Amendment? I
believe that symbolic speech words about about the kind of civil liberties and rights we have, and they
should be apparent in a given situation, like a disagreement on a topic in American politics. I think that
symbolic speech should be protected under the 1st amendment, depending on what the type of speech
is. If it were to be speech against the American ideology and politics, it should be prohibited and not be
given a different view based on judicial activism, or vice versa, with judicial restraint. Burnings of
American flags seems to be a type of terror act, which should not be allowed in America.

Note: you can use the reasoning of the Supreme Court to help justify your position. Please include the
vocabulary words civil liberties, civil rights, judicial activism, or judicial restraint: