His actions are protected by the U.S. Constitution
In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson stood outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas and set fire to an American flag. Johnson was protesting Ronald Reagan’s platform issues and wanted to destroy a symbol of America in response. Johnson was initially convicted of desecrating “a venerated object,” which violated Texas statutes, according to court documents.
The case was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where it ruled Johnson’s actions were protected as symbolic speech under the First Amendment. The decision includes some very pertinent language in regards to Jones’ actions: “the Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable.”
Texas asserted two justifications for Johnson's conviction: preventing breaches of the peace triggered by the offense that desecration inflicts and preserving the integrity of the flag as a symbol of national unity. In order to assess the validity of these claims, Justice William J. Brennan had to weigh them against the First Amendment values at stake. Because government has more license to prohibit harmful “conduct” than harmful “speech,” the Court first had to decide whether Johnson's desecration was “conduct” or “speech.” Brennan ruled that the desecration was “expressive conduct” because it was an attempt to “convey a particularized message” (p. 404).
Remember it isn't just this type of speech which is protected
The National Socialist Party applied for a parade permit so that they could march through the village of Skokie Illinois which is predominantly Jewish. Their petition was denied and they filed a law suit which was finally decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
On April 29, 1977, the Circuit Court of Cook County entered an injunction against petitioners. The injunction prohibited them from performing any of the following actions within the village of Skokie, Ill.: "[m]arching, walking or parading in the uniform of the National Socialist Party of America; [m]arching, walking or parading or otherwise displaying the swastika on or off their person; [d]istributing pamphlets or displaying any materials which incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry or hatred against persons of any faith or ancestry, race or religion." The Illinois Appellate Court denied an application for stay pending appeal. Applicants then filed a petition for a stay in the Illinois Supreme Court, together with a request for [432 U.S. 43, 44] a direct expedited appeal to that court. The Illinois Supreme Court denied both the stay and leave for an expedited appeal. Applicants then filed an application for a stay with MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, as Circuit Justice, who referred the matter to the Court.As you can see certain types of hate speech are also protected.
While in many countries these actions would not be allowed under the law in the U.S. they are protected speech.
No comments:
Post a Comment