A Communist and a Court's Decision: The Social Construction of Flag Worship Argumentation and Chief Justice Rehnquist's Dissent in Texas v. Johnson

October 1998
Free Speech Yearbook;1998, Vol. 36, p15
Academic Journal
An essay is presented on arguments over the meaning of flag desecration on a rhetorically-based study. It mentions that American flag symbolizes the U.S. and majority of the Americans believed that the flag must be honored and respected. The author asserts that flag desecration is a part of an individual's right to free speech which is under the First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.


Related Articles

  • Flag Burning: An Overview. Aliprandini, Michael; Newton, Heather // Points of View: Flag Burning;2014, p1 

    The article explores the controversy over flag burning or desecration in the U.S. Free speech advocates claim that burning the flag in public is an exercise of individual civil liberties and is protected under the First Amendment. Opponents of flag burning argue that this act represents a lack...

  • Counterpoint: An Amendment that Forbids Flag Burning Would Violate the Constitution. Bailey, Ellen; Walter, Andrew // Points of View: Flag Burning;3/1/2016, p3 

    The article argues that a constitutional amendment to forbid the burning or desecration of the U.S. flag would be impossible to enforce and would violate freedom of speech. It traces the history of flag burning in the country. The impact of the proposed anti-desecration amendment on the First...

  • Point: Flag Burning and Free Speech: Why an Amendment is Unnecessary. Pearson, John // Points of View: Flag Burning;3/1/2016, p5 

    This article presents an argument that flag burning is protected under free speech in the United States. A constitutional amendment prohibiting flag burning would be a clear violation of the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and expression, specifically of the freedom to criticize...

  • Government Speech. Curran Jr, J. Joseph // Supreme Court Debates;Feb2009, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p7 

    An excerpt from a report by Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr. on October 2, 2001 regarding the provision of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting Congress of making law abridging the freedom of speech is presented.

  • GOVERNMENT SPEECH.  // Supreme Court Debates;May2015, Vol. 18 Issue 5, p6 

    An excerpt from the report "Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment" is presented.

  • First Amendment/free speech is in the crosshairs. Kolodziej, Elaine // Wilson County News;4/9/2014, p10A 

    The author reflects on the First Amendment to the Constitution of the U.S. which protects the freedom of speech of all Americans in the country.

  • First Amendment provides the muscle.  // Washington Jewish Week;11/19/2015, Vol. 51 Issue 47, p18 

    The author reflects on the U.S. First Amendment and its protection of free-speech rights which is applicable to journalists and demonstrators.

  • IMAGINARY THREATS TO GOVERNMENT'S EXPRESSIVE INTERESTS. Norton, Helen // Case Western Reserve Law Review;Summer2011, Vol. 61 Issue 4, p1265 

    The article discusses the exemption of the government's own speech from the free speech clause scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court. It highlights the importance of government expression which enables members of the public to identify the priorities of the government. It emphasizes the court case...

  • THE PORNOGRAPHIC SECONDARY EFFECTS DOCTRINE. Fee, John // Alabama Law Review;2009, Vol. 60 Issue 2, p291 

    The secondary effects doctrine has made a muddle of First Amendment law. The doctrine formally holds that a speech regulation will be treated as content-neutral if its purpose is to control the secondary effects of speech, even if it facially discriminates according to speech content. It...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics