Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
A history of U.S. laws banning flag burning and other forms of flag desecration, from 1897 to the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment. On Language: Desecration. Column in the New York Times (July 31, 2005) by William Safire on the use of the word desecration in the proposed amendment. Cracking the Flag-Burning Amendment; A Brief History of Flag ...
Actions that may be treated as the desecration of a flag include burning it, [1] urinating or defecating on it, defacing it with slogans, [1] stepping upon it, damaging it with stones; bullets; or any other projectile, cutting or ripping it, [1] improperly flying it, verbally insulting it, dragging it on the ground, [2] or eating it, among other things.
In response, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law in 1989 that the Supreme Court struck down a year later in United States v. Eichman as unconstitutional. An upside down flag: A prop for ...
The flag burning and graffiti outside Union Station drew strong criticism from Republican U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson and Hakeem Jeffries, the chamber's Democratic leader.
A 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upheld a protestor's right to burn the American flag, but President-elect Trump might want to change that.
Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or ...
Punishing flag burning or most forms of disagreeable speech sets a dangerous precedent by suggesting that expressions deemed unpatriotic or in disagreement with those in power can be met with ...