Flag Burning and the First Amendment

A Case Study of

U.S. v. Eichman

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON:MIDNIGHT ON OCTOBER 28, 1989

Mark Haggerty, Jennifer Campbell, Darius Strong, and Carlos Garza remove a flag from a U.S. post office and burn it.

They are immediately arrested and charged with violating the Flag Protection Act of 1989.

Photo taken by Nova77. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_skyline_night.jpg

. . . TWO DAYS LATER IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

Shawn Eichman, David Blalock, Scott Tyler and Gregory “Joey” Johnson each burn a flag on the steps of the Capitol Building.

Three of the four are arrested for violating The Flag Protection Act of 1989.

Photo by Hellohowareyoudoing. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Capitol_Building_Side2.jpg

WHAT WAS THEIR DEFENSE?

Both groups were prosecuted in federal court.

Both claimed that the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.

Photo by Noplur.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_burning.jpg

First Amendmen

t

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.

PURE SPEECH Words or conduct limited in form to what

is necessary to convey the idea. Given the greatest constitutional

protection. Limitations

Schenk v. United States Clear and Present Danger

Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire Fighting Words

SYMBOLIC SPEECH

Conduct that expresses opinions or thoughts.Stromberg v. California

Raising a red Communist Flag

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

SYMBOLIC SPEECH: THE SPENCE TEST

Spence v. WashingtonAn intent to convey a particularized message.A great likelihood that the message will be

understood by those who view it.

SYMBOLIC SPEECH: LESS PROTECTED

Symbolic Speech enjoys less protection than pure speech.When “speech” and “nonspeech” elements are

combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important government interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.

SYMBOLIC SPEECH: THE O’BRIEN TEST

Under United States v. O’Brien, the government can regulate symbolic speech if:

1. It is within its constitutional power to do so;

2. It furthers an important or substantial government interest;

3. That government interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression (in other words, related to the nonspeech element of the conduct);

4. And the incidental restriction on the “speech” element is no greater than necessary to further the interest.

...SO, IS FLAG BURNING A FORM OF PROTECTED

SPEECH?

Texas v. Johnson Gregory “Joey” Johnson

burns a flag outside the Republican National Convention of 1984 in Dallas, Texas.

He is arrested for violating a Texas anti-flag burning statute.

Photo by Joel Seidenstein. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Kunstler_and_Gregory_Lee_Johnson.jpg

SUPREME COURT NARROWLY FINDS FOR JOHNSON

Photo by UpstateNYer.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USSupremeCourtWestFacade.JPG

5-4 Decision Spence v. Washington

test Johnson conveyed a

particularized message likely to be understood by observers.

U.S. v. O’Brien test Government interest was

to suppress free expression

CONGRESS STRIKES BACK

Congress passes the Flag Protection Act of 1989.

The Flag Protection Act of 1969

Whoever knowingly casts contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Congressional Response

Democrats Generally favored

creating a stronger law than the one in existence to prevent flag burning

Law should be “content-neutral” and focus on actions to avoid 1st Amendment application

Republicans Feared a new federal

law would simply expand the Johnson holding

Generally favored a Constitutional Amendment expressly giving Congress to legislate on the issue

Supported by President George H.W. Bush

Flag Protection Act of 1989

Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

Clause that gave the Supreme Court direct jurisdiction over any appeal asking to address the constitutionality of the provision

“JOEY” JOHNSON & FRIENDS REACT

At midnight on October 28, 1989, the moment the new Act goes into effect, protesters across the country burn flags in protest.

This includes the Seattle protesters.

Two nights later, Johnson and his friends burn flags AGAIN in Washington, D.C.

Photo by Jennifer Parr. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_flag_burning.jpg

THE CASES BECOME U.S. v. EICHMAN

The Supreme Court combines the two cases into one action.

Solicitor General Kenneth Starr Represents the U.S.

Bill Kunstler once again represents the flag burners.

ONCE AGAIN...THE FLAG BURNERS WIN!

5-4 Decision

Photo by lkluft.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fireworks_in_San_Jose_California_2007_07_04_by_Ian_Kluft_img_9618.jpg

Supreme Court Votes in Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman Laws Violate 1st

Amendment Marshall Brennan Blackmun Kennedy Scalia

Laws Do Not Violate 1st Amendment Stevens White O’Connor Rehnquist

Flag Desecration Amendment Debate

The Congress shall have power to prohibit

the physical desecration of the flag of the United

States

Arguments Against Flag Desecration Amendment

Restricts freedom of speech

Tyranny of the Majority

Opens the door

Arguments For Flag Desecration Amendment Not speech Special symbol Historical support for

banning Narrow area of law

Flag Protection Amendment Bills in Congress

Congress Resolution(s) Vote Date Yes No Percent104th          

 House Joint Resolution 79 June 28, 1995 312 120 72%

 Senate Joint Resolution 31 December 19, 1995 63 36 64%

105th        

 House Joint Resolution 54 June 12, 1997 310 114 73%

106th        

 House Joint Resolution 33 June 24, 1999 305 124 71%

 Senate Joint Resolution 14 March 29, 2000 63 37 63%

107th           House Resolution 36 July 17, 2001 298 125 70%108th        

 House Joint Resolution 4 June 3, 2003 300 125 71%

109th        

 House Joint Resolution 10 June 22, 2005 285 130 69%

 Senate Joint Resolution 12 June 27, 2006 66 34 66%

States’ Actions in Support of Flag Protection Amendment All 50 states have

passed resolutions

48 states still have flag desecration laws in place

American Support of a Flag Protection Amendment How important do you think it is to make physical

desecration of the U.S. flag against the law?

© Opinion Research Corporation, 2006. Prepared for the Citizen’s Flag Alliance

American Support of a Flag Protection Amendment Would you favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment

that would allow Congress to enact laws to protect the U.S. flag?

© Opinion Research Corporation, 2006. Prepared for the Citizen’s Flag Alliance

Desecrating Other Symbols

Civic?

Desecrating Other Symbols

Personal? Effigy of

Representative Frank Kratovil in 2009

Desecrating Other Symbols

Religious?

Westboro Baptist Church

“We adhere to the teachings of the Bible and preach against all forms of sin (e.g., fornication, adultery [including divorce and remarriage], sodomy)”

“WBC engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth.”

Recent Scheduled Protests: Fort Hood Memorial on Nov. 10 Veterans’ sites on Nov. 11 A Jewish high school on Nov. 12

Protected Speech?

Nazi March in Skokie Chase Harper How to be a Hitman Anarchist’s Cookbook Geert Wilders Crush Videos Town Hall Meetings