73 Comments

1. Case: United States v. Eichman 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
   Facts: as a direct response to the Texas v. Johnson ruling, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made destroying or mutilating the American flag a federal crime. Barry Eichman was charged under this federal act for burning a flag during a political protest and argued that the new act was a violation of his First Amendment rights.
   Statement of issues: was the Flag Protection Act constitutional?
   Decision: 5-4 The court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional.
   Reasoning: as a form of speech, flag burnings are protected by the First Amendment, and the government’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was insufficient to justify restricting First Amendment protections. The government cannot prohibit expression simply because it is offensive or controversial.
   Summary: the case expanded and clarified the protections of symbolic speech regarding political protest.

   Reply

2. United States v Eichman
   496 US 310 (1990)

   Facts: Congress decided to pass the Flag Protection Act in 1989, which had made it illegal to desecrate the American flag. There were exceptions for the disposal of the flag. Eichman was convicted under the law.

   Issue: Does the federal Flag Protection Act violate the First Amendment right of expression?

   Decision: (5-4) The court ruled with Eichman

   Reasoning: The court ruled that did in fact violate the freedom of expression as the flag was still in no way impacted by this action. Any “desecration” also could have been applied to many different instances that it would incriminate many for not much.

   Reply

3. I. United States v. Eichman

   II. 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

   III. Facts: Eichman burns an American flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, and for this, he gets charged with violating the Flag Protection Act of 1989.

   IV. Issue: Does the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violate the First Amendment?

   V. Decision and Action:
   (1). Yes. Affirmed.

   VI. Reasoning: The court reasons that the Act focuses on acts of expressive conduct that disrespect what the flag stands for. The court states that the government’s interest in preserving the flag’s symbolic value is not sufficient to justify the infringement on individuals’ First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

   VII. Concurring Opinion: N/A

   VIII. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stevens dissents and is joined by Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor.

   IX. Voting Coalition: 5-4 vote

   X. Summary: The court ruled that the Act did violate the First Amendment.

   Reply

4. I.United States v. Eichman

   II. 496 US 310 (1990)

   III. Facts: In 1989 Congress passed the statute the Flag Protection Act that made it a crime to destroy the American flag. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. capitol to protest against the domestic and foreign policy.

   IV. Question: Did this act violate the freedom of expression that is protected by the 1st Amendment?

   V. Decision: Yes in a 5-4 decision the court ruled that the freedom of expression by 1st Amendment.

   VI. Reasoning: The court reasoned that this law was unconstitutional because its interest was the suppression of speech and was concerned with the content of the expression. The flag was allowed to be burned in a disposal ceremony but not when the protestors wanted to argue about something which was why this law was invalid.

   Reply

5. U.S. v. Eichman
   – Legal Citation:
   – Statement of Facts: In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the United States Supreme Court held that a Texas statute prohibiting the desecration of the U.S. flag was unconstitutional as applied to a person who had burned a flag during a political protest. After the Johnson decision, the U.S. Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (the Act). The Act provided that anyone who knowingly “mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States” would be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both. The Act contained an exception for disposing of a flag once it had become worn or soiled. Eichman (defendant) burned a U.S. flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol as part of a protest of aspects of the government’s domestic and foreign policy. The United States (plaintiff) prosecuted Eichman for violating the Act. Relying on Johnson, the district court held that the Act could not be constitutionally applied to Eichman and dismissed the charges. The United States appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.
   – Statement of Issues: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
   – Decision and Action: yes, 5-4 for Eichman;
   – Reasoning: the Court struck down the law because “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.” Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear, argued Justice Brennan in one of his final opinions.
   – Concurring Opinions: none
   – Dissenting Opinions: Stevens, Rehnquist, White, O’Connor

   Reply

6. I. United States v. Eichman
   II. 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
   III. Facts: In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which criminalized the destruction of an American flag or any like flag. The law did allow for proper disposal of a flag. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy.
   IV. Question: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
   V. Decision: 5-4
   VI. Reasoning: The Court struck down the law, stating that it targeted and suppressed free expression based on the message being conveyed.

   Reply

7. Title: States v. Eichman

   Citation: 496 US 310 (1990)

   Facts: Congress passed The Flag Protection Act of 1989, which criminalizes the action of anyone who “knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon” a United States flag; exceptions were detailed for disposals of a “worn or soiled” flag. Eichman set a flag on fire on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in protest of the government’s domestic and foreign policy. During the same period, a Seattle prosecution was in motion known as United States v. Haggerty, which resulted from Haggerty flag-burning in protest of the Flag Protection Act. Both District Courts ruled that the Act was unconstitutional in application and dismissed the Eichman and Haggerty charges. The Court heard Eichman and Haggerty co-jointly.

   Legal question: Whether the Flag Protection Act violates freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

   Holding: Yes, 5-4

   Reasoning: The Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act unconstitutionally abridged freedom of expression, and therefore, the Court ruled flag burning was expressive conduct; citing Texas v Johnson, the Court noted that although flag burning is received as disrespectful, it doesn’t disrupt peace or harm the symbol of the nation. The Court also relied on the previous point that the government can not exercise interest or power to limit a person’s treatment of the flag if they do not align with the expression/message behind such a demonstration. Justice Brennan emphasized, “While flag desecration — like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures — is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

   Reply

8. United States v. Eichman (1990)
   Facts: In 1989 congress passed the flag protection act which prohibited d destruction of the flag with the exception of proper disposals of old flags. Eichman and Haggerty both burned the flag in protest on two separate occasions. Their cases were combined in the Eichman case. Both argued that their actions were protected by the first amendment.

   Question: Was this act a violation of the free speech protections in the first amendment?

   Decision: Similarly to Texas v Johnson the courts decided that this was suppression of speech based on content which is not constitutionally protected. The act made exceptions for people who burned the flag as a part of a disposal ceremony, but disallowed burning the flag for protesting. This differentiation identified that the speech suppression was based on content.

   Reply

9. United States v. Eichman
   496 U.S. 310 (1990)
   Facts: Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989, making it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be commonly displayed, but allowed for proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Eichman set a flag on fire on the steps of the U.S. capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution, U.S. v. Haggerty resulted from a flag burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act was argued with Eichman,
   Issue: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
   Decision: Yes, 5-4.
   Reasoning: The court held that the act violated the First Amendment, similarly to Texas v. Johnson, because “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.” This was clear due to the fact that a flag was allowed to be burned in a disposal ceremony, but protesters were prohibited from burning a flag at a political protest. The act suppressed expression out of concern for its likely communicative impact, even though the act contained no explicit content based limitation.

   Reply

10. United States v. Eichman

    Facts: In United States v. Eichman (1990), Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which prohibited any form of flag desecration, except for the respectful disposal of worn or soiled flags. This Act was passed in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which had previously ruled that flag burning as a form of protest was protected speech. Gregory Lee Johnson and other protesters, including Eichman, burned American flags in protest of U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Eichman burned a flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, while a companion case, United States v. Haggerty, involved flag burning in Seattle. Both individuals were prosecuted under the new law, which led to a legal challenge.

    Issue: Did the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violate the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

    Holding: Yes, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act violated the First Amendment.

    Reasoning: Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, referenced Texas v. Johnson and argued that the Flag Protection Act’s intent to prevent flag desecration in political protests amounted to viewpoint discrimination, as it specifically targeted acts of symbolic speech. By allowing the respectful burning of flags for disposal but prohibiting similar actions during protests, the Act demonstrated a clear suppression of free expression based on content.

    Dissent: Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, O’Connor, and Stevens dissented, arguing that the flag, as a symbol of national unity and patriotism, deserved unique legal protection. They said that flag desecration laws serve a valid government interest in preserving a revered national symbol.

    Impact: Reinforced the Supreme Court’s stance that symbolic speech, including acts of protest involving the flag, is protected under the First Amendment. This decision reaffirmed that government cannot prohibit expression simply because it is offensive or controversial.

    Reply

11. United States v. Eichman
    Legal Citation: 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    Statement of Facts: After Johnson, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act 1989. The Act criminalized the conduct of anyone who “knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon” a United States flag, except conduct related to the disposal of a “worn or soiled” flag. Eichmann burned the flag at the U.S. Capitol in protest of the government’s foreign and domestic policies. United States v. Haggerty was decided in conjunction with this case, Haggerty burned the flag in protest of the Act.

    Statement of Issues: Did the Act violate the freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?

    Holding: Yes, 5-4.

    Reasoning: The Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional. Although the government states that the statute in Johnson is different from the Act in that it does not target expressive conduct on the basis of the contents message, the Court reasons that it is clear that the Government’s interest is “related to the suppression of free expression.”

    Reply

12. Case Brief: Texas v. Johnson (1989)

    Citation: 491 U.S. 397 (1989)

    Facts: During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in protest of the Reagan administration and other political policies. He was arrested and convicted under a Texas statute that prohibited desecration of the American flag. Johnson argued that his actions were a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

    Issue: Does the First Amendment protect the act of flag burning as a form of free speech?

    Holding: Yes, the First Amendment protects flag burning as a form of expressive conduct.

    Reasoning: The Court held that Johnson’s flag burning was expressive conduct with a distinct political message. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, argued that the government could not prohibit speech simply because it found it offensive. Restrictions based on content were held to be unconstitutional unless they served a compelling state interest. The Court emphasized that the First Amendment protects free expression, even if it is offensive or controversial. Texas’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood was deemed insufficient to justify suppressing Johnson’s expression.

    Reply

13. Title: United v. Eichman

    Legal Citation: 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    Facts: Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act in 1989, which made destroying an American flag or any similar representation of it illegal. However, the law allowed the respectful disposal of damaged or dirty flags. This Act led to several legal cases. Eichman set a flag on fire at the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution, United States v. Haggerty where they burned a flag in Seattle while protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act. Both cases were argued together.

    Issues: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

    Holding: Yes, in a 5-4 decision ruling in favor of Eichman.

    Reasoning: The Court rejected the law because “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression”. Justice Brennan, argued in one of his final opinions that allowing flag burning in a disposal ceremony while prohibiting protesters from burning it at a political protest was conflicting.

    Reply

14. United States v. Eichman (1990)

    Facts: Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggarty burned flags to protest the government’s domestic and foreign policy, violating the Flag Protection Act 1989.

    Question: Did the Flag Protection Act violate their 1st amendment rights?

    Holding: 5-4 for Eichman.

    Reasoning: The court upheld the same logic from Texas v. Johnson.

    Reply

15. United States v. Eichman (1990)
    496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    Facts: Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989, making it a federal crime to knowingly mutilate, deface, physically defile, burn, or trample upon any American flag. Shawn Eichman and others publicly burned flags to protest the Flag Protection Act.

    Issue: Does the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violate the First Amendment?

    Holding: Yes, the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violates the First Amendment by prohibiting flag desecration as a form of expressive conduct.

    Reasoning: The Court struck down the Flag Protection Act because it constituted an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. The Court reaffirmed the principles established in Texas v. Johnson. The Court also held that the government’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was insufficient to justify a prohibition on expressive conduct.

    Reply

16. United States v. Eichman (1990)
    496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    Facts: In Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Texas law banning the desecration of the U.S. flag was unconstitutional when applied to an individual who burned the flag during a political protest. Following the Johnson decision, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (the Act), which made it a federal offense to knowingly “mutilate, deface, physically defile, burn, maintain on the floor or ground, or trample upon any flag of the United States.” The Act included an exception for disposing of worn or soiled flags. David Eichman burned a U.S. flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol as part of a protest against certain aspects of the government’s domestic and foreign policy. The United States prosecuted Eichman under the Act. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson, the district court ruled that the Act could not be constitutionally applied to Eichman and dismissed the charges.

    Issue: Does the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violate the First Amendment by prohibiting flag desecration as a political protest?

    Decision: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violated the First Amendment, as it restricted free speech. The Court determined that flag burning constitutes symbolic speech, which the First Amendment safeguards.

    Reasoning: Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Rehnquist, White, and Kennedy, filed a dissenting opinion. The dissenters argued that the government’s interest in safeguarding the flag as a symbol of national unity was compelling enough to justify the restrictions imposed by the Flag Protection Act. They asserted that the Act did not violate the First Amendment because it aimed not to suppress political expression, but rather at protecting a symbol of great importance to the American public. Justice Stevens further argued that the government’s interest in preserving the flag was like other laws that regulate conduct to protect national symbols, such as those prohibiting the defacement of currency or the desecration of the national anthem.

    Reply

17. NAME & LEGAL CITATION
    United States v. Eichman
    496 US 310 (1990)

    FACTS
    The Flag Protection Act made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be “commonly displayed”; however, the law did allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act.

    One, Eichman set a flag ablaze on the U.S. Capitol steps while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy. Two, in United States v. Haggerty, a prosecution resulted from a flag burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.

    QUESTION
    Does the Flag Protection Act which makes it a crime to destroy an American flag violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

    HOLDING
    In a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the Flag Protection Act.

    REASONING
    Justice Brennan delivered the opinion. The Court struck down the law because “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression”.

    Reply

18. United States v. Eichman
    496 US 310 (1990)

    Facts: After Texas v. Johnson in 1989 overturned the Texas statute criminalizing flag desecration, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 in the attempt to circumvent the Texas v. Johnson ruling. The Act criminalized the mistreatment or destruction of an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be “commonly displayed.” Destruction includes knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, burning, or trampling upon the US flag with the exception of the proper disposal of a “worn or soiled” flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. In Washington DC, Shawn Eichman, a member of the Coalition Opposed to Censorship in the Arts, was protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy outside the US Capitol and set a flag ablaze along with Gregory Lee Johnson, Dread Scott, and Vietnam veteran David Blalock. All four individuals were supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade. On the day of the protest, they released a statement urging others to express opposition to “compulsory patriotism” by burning the flag. This case was argued with another case, United States v. Haggerty, where flags were burned at a demonstration organized by Vietnam Veterans Against the War outside the Capitol Hill post office in protest of the passage of the Flag Protection Act.

    Legal Question: Did the Flag Protection Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

    Decision: Yes

    Reasoning of Court: per Brennan. Refusing to reconsider its decision in Texas v. Johnson, the Court struck down the Flag Protection Act because the government’s asserted interest in protecting the “physical integrity” of a privately owned flag in order to preserve the flag’s status as a symbol of the Nation and certain national ideals is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content, of free expression. The government’s interest is implicated only when a person’s treatment of the flag communicates a message to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals. This was made clear when the Act allowed the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibited protestors from setting it on fire at a political protest. The Court held that the federal government, like the states, cannot prosecute a person for desecration of a US flag for the prosecution in violation of the Act would be inconsistent with the First Amendment as flag-burning constituted expressive conduct and enjoys the First Amendment’s full protection.

    Voting Coalitions: (5 to 4). For the majority, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy. Dissenting, Rehnquist, White, Stevens, O’Connor.

    Reply

19. I. U.S. v. Eichman

    II. 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    III. Facts: Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to protect the flag, but did allow for propal disposal of a worn or soiled flag- Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in protesting domestic and foreign policy, while in U.S. v Haggerty, a sister case argued together with it, it was a burning in Seattle.

    IV. Issue: Does the Act violate the 1st?

    V. Ruling: Yes (5-4), ruling in favor of the the Eichman.

    VI. Reasoning, per Brennan: Through Texas v. Johnson (1989), the law is struck down as it asserted interest in suppressing free expression and concerned with the content thereof. Allowing the flag to be burnt in disposal but prohibiting protestors from dong the same made that distinction clear.

    IX. Summary: The Act protecting the American Flag did violate Free Speech.

    Reply

20. I’m interested in learning the rationale behind a Congress which would so vehemently oppose flag burning, what is a non-issue today. What has changed in the last thirty five years which led to that shift in public or legislative opinion?

    Reply

21. United States v. Eichman
    496 US 310 (1990)

    Facts:
    In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, making it a criminal offense to destroy an American flag or any representation that is commonly displayed. However, the law permitted the proper disposal of flags that were worn or soiled. This legislation led to multiple prosecutions, including that of Eichman, who set a flag on fire on the steps of the U.S. Capitol as a protest against government policies, both domestic and foreign.

    Question:
    Did the Flag Protection Act violate freedom of expression?

    Holding:
    Yes, 5-4

    Rationale:
    The Court invalidated the law, stating that “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and is concerned with the content of such expression.”

    Reply

22. nice one!

    Reply

23. Facts of the Case:
    In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which held that flag burning was protected symbolic speech, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. Shawn Eichman and others were charged under this federal law for burning American flags during a political protest.

    Question:
    Did the Flag Protection Act violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech as established in Texas v. Johnson?

    Opinion:
    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Eichman. Justice Brennan held that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional as it impermissibly restricted expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.

    Reasoning:
    Building on the precedent set in Texas v. Johnson, the Court reaffirmed that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection. The government’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not justify criminalizing expressive acts that might offend patriotic sensibilities. The decision clarified that content-based restrictions on political expression, even when involving the desecration of a revered national symbol, ran afoul of the First Amendment. Eichman thus solidified the principle that protecting unpopular and controversial forms of expression is essential to preserving the vitality of the First Amendment.

    Reply

24. United States v. Eichman

    496 US 310 (1990)

    In 1989, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act, which criminalized destroying an American flag. The law permitted the proper disposal of worn or damaged flags. Subsequent prosecutions arose from the Act, including Eichman, who burned a flag on the U.S. Capitol protest the government’s policies, and another case (United States v. Haggerty) involving flag-burning in Seattle in opposition to the Flag Protection Act. Both cases (Eichman’s and Haggerty’s) were argued at the same time.

    Question: Did the Act violate freedom of expression which is protected by the First Amendment?

    In a 5-to-4 ruling, following a precedent set in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court invalidated the law, stating that “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.” Justice Brennan, argued that allowing flag burning in a disposal ceremony while prohibiting protesters from burning it at a political protest underscored this inconsistency.

    Reply

25. A person burned an American flag in public, in violation of a state anti-flag burning law. Scotus determined that the law was unconstitutional and that people have a right to burn the flag. Burning the flag is content based free speech.

    Reply

26. A law was passed called the Flag Protection Act, that made it to where flag burning was illegal. Eichman burned the U.S flag and was convicted of the crime. Was the law unconstitutional? The Court deemed it was and it was a violation of the freedom of speech. This form of expression is legal and the law was unconstitutional.

    Reply

27. Law was passed in Congress that criminalized burning of the flag. Eichman burned a flag and was convicted
    Is this law unconstitutional?
    Yes, court strucked down this law, as it is an violation of free speech.
    It is constitutional to burn US flag, as long as it is your own flag, and you did not steal it

    Reply

28. United States v. Eichman (1990)

    496 U.S. 310

    Facts: The Flag Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1989. This new law criminalized the desecration of an American flag. It passed after the decision of Texas v. Johnson. This law did, however, allow the American flag to be properly disposed of once it’s been worn out. Shawn Eichman had burned the American flag on the steps of the United States Capitol building. He was arrested and convicted for violating the recently passed law.

    Question: Does the Flag Protection Act violate Shawn Eichman’s right to burn an American flag under the First Amendment?

    Reasoning: Yes, the Flag Protection Act violates Shawn Eichman’s right to burn an American flag under the First Amendment. The Court reasoned, similarly to Texas v. Johnson, that burning a flag is a form of expression that is protected under the First Amendment.

    Concurring: None.

    Dissenting: Justice Rehnquist, Stevens, White, and O’Connor.

    Voting Coalition: 5-4; in favor of Eichman.

    Reply

29. United States v. Eichman

    496 US 310 (1990)

    Rule of Law: The Flag Protection Act of 1989 represents an unconstitutional content-based restriction on freedom of expression

    Facts: In Texas v. Johnson, SCOTUS held that a Texas statute prohibiting the desecration of the US flag was unconstitutional as applied to a person who had burnt the flag during a protest. After Texas v. Johnson, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act provided that anyone who knowingly “mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States” would be punished by fine, imprisonment, or both. The Act has an exception for disposing of flags once they have been old/worn or soiled. The US prosecuted Eichman for violating the Act. Eichman set a flag on fire on the steps of the US capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy.

    Issue: Does the Flag Protection Act of 1989 represent an unconstitutional content-based restriction on freedom of expression

    Holding: 5-4 decision; majority opinion by Justice Brennan Jr.

    Reasoning: Yes, the Flag Protection Act of 1989 represents an unconstitutional content-based restriction based on freedom of expression. The Act makes it a crime to deface or destroy the flag of the US intentionally. The US asserts that the government is interested in protecting the flag’s identity as the country’s distinctive symbol. The conduct prohibited by the Act clearly targets activities that imply disrespect to the flag

    Reply

30. US v Eichman
    496 US 310 (1990)
    Facts: Congressed passed the Flag Protection Act, an act that made it illegal to destroy the American flag. Eichman burned a flag on the stairs of the US capitol in protest.
    Question: Did the act violate the freedom of expression in the first amendment?
    Opinion: yes, 5-4
    Reasoning: basing reasoning on ruling of texas v johnson

    Reply

31. In the case of United States v. Eichman (1990), the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of laws that prohibited the desecration of the American flag, specifically focusing on flag burning as a form of protest protected under the First Amendment.

    The case followed the passage of the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made it illegal to desecrate the American flag. Eichman and another individual, Haggerty, were involved in separate incidents where they burned flags in protest against government policies. They were charged under the Flag Protection Act.

    The question at hand was whether the Flag Protection Act, which criminalized desecrating the American flag, violated the right to free speech as protected by the First Amendment.

    The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, struck down the Flag Protection Act as unconstitutional. The majority held that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech and expression, protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech provisions.

    The Court’s decision in United States v. Eichman reaffirmed the principle established in Texas v. Johnson (1989) that laws prohibiting flag desecration, including flag burning, violated the right to free speech protected by the Constitution. The ruling upheld the right to engage in expressive conduct, even if it involved actions deemed offensive to the symbol of the American flag, as an exercise of protected speech.

    Reply

32. I. Name or Title of Case:
    United States v. Eichman (1990)

    II. Legal Citation:
    496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    III. Statement of Facts:
    Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989, which prohibited and criminalized against individuals right to destroy the American Flag, or any likeness of the American flag can be “commonly displayed.” This statute only allowed for propal disposal of a already damaged flag. Due to this new law, numerous convictions and prosecutions took place. In 1990, on the steps of the United States Capitol building, Eichman set a flag on fire in order to protest the government’s policies, domestic and foreign.

    IV. Statement of Issues:
    Whether or not the Flag Protection Act in 1989 is in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

    V. Decision and Action:
    The Cour ruled in favor of Eichman, holding that the Flag Protection Act in 1989 was in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

    VI. Reasoning of the Court:
    The Court, delievered by Justice Brennan, provided that the act was unconstitutional due to the fact that “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.” If the court allowed for flag burning in disposal cermonies but not protesters spreading political expression it would potential suppress individuals right to free expression.

    VII. Concurring Opinions:
    None.

    VIII. Dissenting Opinions:
    Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Rehnquist, O’Connor, and White, filed a dissenting opinion.

    IX. Voting Coalition:
    The Court ruled in favor of Eichman with a simple majority vote of 5 to 4.

    X. Summary:
    This case was important because it established that individuals could not be charged for intetionally damaging the U.S. flag under the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

    Reply

33. In United States v. Eichman, Eichman was charged with violating the Flag Protection Act for burning the American flag on the steps of the U.S. capitol in protest against U.S. domestic and foreign policies. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Texas v. Johnson, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act, which made it illegal to knowingly destroy, desecrate, burn, trample on, etc. an American flag. This law did not apply to burning flags that had been worn out and were ready to be retired in order to properly dispose of them. The question before the Supreme Court was did the Flag Protection Act violate the First Amendment? In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that the act was unconstitutional because its purpose was to suppress free speech. Justice Brennan explained that by allowing the flag to be burned in order to properly dispose of it, but not allowing the flag to be burned at a political protest supported the idea that the act’s purpose/interest was to suppress free speech.

    Reply

34. I. United States v. Eichman
    II.496 US 310 (1990)
    III. Facts:In 1989, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act, which criminalized the destruction of an American flag or any recognizable representation of it commonly displayed. The law permitted the lawful disposal of worn or soiled flags but led to multiple prosecutions. One case involved Eichman, who set a flag on fire at the U.S. Capitol steps to protest government policies, and another case, United States v. Haggerty, arose from flag burning in Seattle as a protest against the Flag Protection Act. Both cases were argued jointly.
    IV. Issues:
    Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
    V. Decision and Action:
    The Court struck down the law.
    VI. Reasoning Per Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy
    The majority argued that the government’s interest is only implicated when the desecration of the flag conveys a message inconsistent with its symbolic ideals, and the Flag Protection Act focused on acts likely to damage the flag’s symbolic value. While flag desecration may be offensive to many, the government cannot prohibit expressive conduct solely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable. The ruling clarified that laws restricting flag desecration must meet strict scrutiny and cannot infringe on First Amendment rights without justification that is unrelated to the content of the speech itself.
    VII. Concurrence Per none
    VIII. Dissents Per Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, O’Connor
    They ruled that the federal government, like the states, cannot prosecute someone for desecrating a U.S. flag, as it would violate the First Amendment.
    IX. Coalitions: 5–4 DECISION for Eichman
    X. Summary:The Court invalidated the law on the grounds that its stated interest was connected to stifling free expression and focused on the content of that expression. Justice Brennan, in one of his last opinions, emphasized the inconsistency of permitting flag burning in a proper disposal ceremony while prohibiting protesters from doing so at political demonstrations.

    Reply

35. United States v. Eichman
    496 U.S. 310 (1990)
    Facts of the Case: The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was passed by Congress to prohibit destroying an American flag after the decision in Texas v. Johnson, claiming flag burning was protected speech. Eichman had burned an American flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol as a form of protest regarding the domestic and foreign policy, so he was arrested for violating the Flag Protection Act.
    Legal Question: Did the Flag Protection Act violate the freedom of speech/expression?
    Holding: 5-4 decision in favor of Eichman
    Court’s Opinion: Similar to Texas v. Johnson, the Flag Protection Act was struck down because it was considered to suppress speech and expression. The act states the flag may be burned once worn and soiled, but it can’t be burned as a form of protest. The court used this to justify its interference with individuals’ freedom of expression.

    Reply

36. I. United States v. Eichman (1990)
    II. 496 US 310
    III. Facts: In response to Texas v. Johnson, the 101st Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which attempted to circumvent the ruling by prohibiting mistreatment of the flag without regard to any message being conveyed. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Alongside Gregory Lee Johnson, Shawn Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the US Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy on the steps of the US Capitol, in front of a crowd of reporters and photographers. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.
    IV. Issue: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
    V. Decision and Action: Yes
    VI. Reasoning: The Court held that the federal gov’t, like the states, can’t prosecute a person for desecration of a United States flag, because to do so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment. The gov’t conceded that desecration of the flag constitutes expressive conduct and enjoys the First Amendment’s full protection. The “govt’s asserted interest” in protecting the “physical integrity” of a privately owned flag in order “to preserve the flag’s status as a symbol of the Nation” is related to the suppression of free expression.
    VII. Concurring Opinion: N/A
    VIII. Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, White, and O’Connor dissented.
    IX. Voting Coalition: 5-4 for Eichmann; Majority Opinion by Justice Brennan.
    X. Summary: The Case invalidated the federal act as a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. The interest on the part of the gov’t to protect the American flag as a symbols didn’t outweigh the individual right to disparage the symbol through expressive conduct.

    Reply

37. Facts of the Case: United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be “commonly displayed.” The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman’s and Haggerty’s) were argued together.

    Issue:Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

    Ruling: In a 5-to-4 decision, coming on the heels of a similar holding in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court struck down the law because “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.”

    Reasoning: Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear, argued Justice Brennan in one of his final opinions.

    Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Byron R. White, Sandra Day O’Connor, and John Paul Stevens dissented, emphasizing the symbolic significance of the U.S. flag and the distinction between barring a message entirely versus barring one means of message dissemination.

    Reply

38. Congress passed a law saying that it is illegal to burn the flag except for during its disposal. Eichman burned a flag on the capitol grounds to protest American policies and was arrested for violating the law. Eichman sues arguing the law violates the First Amendment. The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional using Texas V. Johnson as a precedent.

    Reply

39. I. United States v. Eichman (1990)
    II. 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
    III. Facts: After the decision in Texas v. Johnson, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which prohibited the destruction of the American flag. Shawn Eichman and others were arrested for burning a flag in protest of the Act.
    IV. Issues: Did the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which prohibited destruction of the flag, violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech?
    V. Decision and Action: Yes.
    VI. Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the Flag Protection Act of 1989 was unconstitutional because it was a content-based restriction on freedom of speech. The Court reaffirmed the principle established in Texas v. Johnson that the government cannot prohibit texpression of an idea due to others finding it offensive
    VII. Concurring Opinion: N/A
    VIII. Dissenting Opinion: Chief Justice Rehnquist, Stevens, White, and O’Connor dissented, arguing that the government had a significant interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity, just as they had before
    IX. Voting Coalitions: Majority in favor of Eichman with a 5-4 decision.
    X. Summary: United States v. Eichman confirmed that laws prohibiting the desecration of the American flag, such as the Flag Protection Act of 1989, are unconstitutional under the First Amendment because they place unreasonable restrictions on free speech.
    XI. Free Space:

    Reply

40. Name and Citation: United States v. Eichman 496 U.S. 310

    Facts: In response to Texas v Johnson, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989, in which it criminalized the destruction, defacement, and trampling of the American flag. There did however, exist an exception, which allowed for the proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Shawn Eichman, burned a flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building and was arrested an convicted for violating the recently passed statute.

    Question: Did the Federal government have the power to prosecute citizens for desecrating the American flag under the Flag Protection Act?

    Opinion: No.

    Reasoning: The court believed that similarly to Texas v. Johnson. The act of flag burning, an expression, was being suppressed under this act. State and federal interest do not supersede the First Amendment of our Constitution.

    Reply

41. Congress tried to pass a law to get around Texas v. Johnson, when people, obviously wanting to test the law and make it unconstitutional decided to burn flags. The district court upheld Texas v. Johnson and ruled the law unconstitutional, which was then immediately appealed to the Supreme Court based on a provision in the statue that required expedited review. Here, the Supreme Court affirmed the district courts and upheld Texas v. Johnson… to really no one’s surprise as it was just a year prior.

    Reply

42. The facts of this case were that in 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be “commonly displayed.” The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act. Both cases were argued together.

    Reply

43. This decision said that the first amendment protects someones right to burn the American flag.

    Reply

44. What’s good for the States is good for the Nation as a whole…(lyles)?

    Reply

45. The decision made in Eichman is similar to that in Texas v. Johnson. The court upheld Eichman’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression after to burned an American flag at the steps of the US Capitol building.

    Reply

46. I’m glad that the court struck down the law because it definitely violates the rights of many as previously stated. The fact that congress pushed this forward, even though the constitution clearly states that congress shall make no law, really shows the lack of dedication from some legislators.

    Reply

47. FEDERAL LAW
    –What’s good for the states is good for the nation as a whole
    Congress made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag that may be “commonly displayed”, and did allow proper disposal of a worn/soiled flag.
    Eichman set a flag on fire on the steps of the Capitol in protest against the US government’s domestic/foreign policy
    -Did the act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
    — court struck down the law because it asserted “interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression”

    Reply

48. United States vs Eichman 496 US 310 (1990)
    Facts: In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be “commonly displayed.” The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman’s and Haggerty’s) were argued together.
    Legal Issue: Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
    Holding: In a 5-4 decision, the court struck down the law.
    Reasoning: Justice Brennan, joined by justices Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy, writes the majority opinion for the court. its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.” Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear.
    Separate Opinion: Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices White, O’Connor, and Stevens dissenting.
    Additional Notes: Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989.

    Reply

49. Facts: Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which criminalized destroying, defacing, maintaining on the ground, or trampling on the American flag. The only exception was properly disposing of a worn or ruined flag. In two different instances, Haggerty and Eichman were charged with burning the American flag as a protest.

    Reply

50. This case is similar of that one of Johnson v. Texas because Eichman burned the flag at the U.S Capitol and he was arrested, by the supreme court held that the Seattle court violated the Eichman’s Freedom of Speech granted by the First Amendment.

    Reply

51. Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 making it a crime to burn or destroy the flag, but did allow disposal of worn or spoiled flag. Eichman set the American flag on fire on the steps of the U.S. Capitol for his opposition towards the government’s domestic and foreign policies. He was convicted under the Flag Protection Act in Seattle. The issue was did this law violated the freedom of speech and similarly to Texas v. Johnson, the court held that the law did violated the freedom of expression.

    Reply

52. United States v. Eichman (1990)
    496 U.S. 310 (1990)

    Okay so here is what i think is goin on

    Statement of Facts
    – Congress decided to pass the Flag Protection Act of 1989 which made it a federal crime to burn flags, irrespective of whatever meaning or expression that the flag burners intended to make.

    – This was challenged by Gregory Johnson, the same guy from the previous case of Texas v. Johnson, joined others, such as who this case is named after: Shawn Eichman, in burning flags in opposition to the statute.

    – They were charged for breaking the new federal statute. District judges revoked the charges using the case of Texas v. Johnson as precedent for this. The case made it to SCOTUS.

    Question
    – Did the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violate the First Amendment?
    – Answer: YES with a 5-4 ruling.

    Majority Opinion
    – “…the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” An argument that is still happening today, and always will happen in any free society.

    – They decided the case in the same manner as the Johnson case. They argued that it isn’t possible to have a flag desecration law that does not inherently try to restrict and suppress freedom of speech.

    – The law also outlined contexts in which a damaged or soiled flag should be treated. These guidelines mean the statute was contradicting itself.

    – Another quote: “ If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

    – Direct callback to a case we studied in Chapter 7 called: “West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.” This was the case where the Jehovah’s Witness students were sent home from school because reciting the pledge of allegiance went against their religious convictions. This ties right into the case of Eichman and shows how the flag statute is inherently restricting First Amendment rights.

    Dissenting Opinion
    – They laid out three scenarios in which they believe it is constitutional to restrict speech. The overarching reason however is that the statute is okay if the flag-burners still have other means with which they can express their opinions. Same argument being repeated from the Johnson case, where they said Johnson is still allowed to protest in ways unrelated to burning a flag.

    – Also here comes O’Brien again. They want this case to be decided in a similar way as to O’Brien.

    – Lots of forms of speech are regulated. What if someone wants a fireworks display, and it isn’t allowed due to threat to public safety? What if people want to run around naked, which goes against public decency laws? Why should we have a double standard when it comes to flag burning, especially so given that the flag is a representation of over 200 years of our country’s history??

    Personal thoughts
    I agree with the majority in this case, that the flag protection act should very much be considered a violation of the first amendment. At the same time, I do sympathize with the dissenting opinion and can totally see where they are coming from. When I see people disrespect or burn our flag, it really upsets me, too. My personal bias, however, is that protesting against our government is too important of a right to be constricted. This includes the ability to burn or tarnish the flag, no matter how offended I or others may be.

    Repeating themes that I have noticed in these cases:
    1. O’Brien and O’Brien and O’Brien and more O’Brien
    2. Callback to West Virginia State Bd vs. Barnette
    3. Expressive Conduct
    4. Symbolic Speech

    Reply

53. Eichman set fire to an American flag in protest of domestic and foreign policy, he was arrested for violated the Flag Protection Act which made it illegal to destroy an American flag for reasons not including proper disposal of either worn or soiled flags. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision striking down the Flag Protection Act ruling that the act suppressed the First Amendment Right to speech

    Reply

54. The act in this case mentions “ crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag.” Does that include clothes that have an American flag print on them?

    Reply

55. This case was very similar to the previous one, so I assume this one’s important because it extended the decision from Texas to the other states.

    Reply

56. There was a point made that flags were allowed to be burned to be properly disposed of but when they were burned during a political protest it was considered a crime and incorrect. I think this effectively proves the point that the Flag Protect Act was a violation of the free speech clause within the First Amendment. The government did not like what one expression of burning a flag meant and thus decided to ban it for the message it would be displaying.

    Reply

57. I was surprised that the Flag Protection Act passed at a federal level. However, I am glad the Court struck it down. It feels like dramatic overreach for Congress to deliberately ban an act of political disobedience like flag burning.

    Reply

58. In this case, the Court wrote that because the Texas statute targeted expressive content it could not be analyzed under the deferential level of review accorded regulations of conduct that impact expression incidentally. A statutory purpose to preserve the flag’s symbolic value was acknowledged. Furthermore, the statute targeted expressions’ “communicative impact” by punishing only desecration likely to offend others.

    Reply

59. In US v. Eichman, the Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act of 1989 on First Amendment grounds, reaffirming its holding in Texas v. Johnson, which invalidated a Texas flag desecration statute. The court invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the 1989 Flag Protection Act was unconstitutional and dismissed the charges against the appellees who were prosecuted in two separate cases for knowingly setting fire to the US flag.

    Reply

60. The main premise of this case is to determine whether the law passed by the US Congress, the Flag Protection Act violated American citizens First Amendment right to freedom of speech by not allowing them to burn the American flag. The Flag Protection Act made it a crime to destroy the American flag. It only allowed for the proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Eichman on the steps of the US Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policies set the flag on fire. The case was argued for both Eichamn and Gaggerty, who burned a flag in Seattle protesting the Act. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act, using precedent from Texas v Johnson. The Court believed that this supressed the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Moreover, not allowing protestors to set the flag on fire but could be done ceremonously was political. As a result, the Flag Protection Act was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL. (Side note, this was not decided on ideological grounds. Justices Kennedy/Scalia joined the majority. Justices White/Stevens joined the dissenting opinion).

    Reply

61. If I burn a flag, I must ask, is it my property? Yes.
    If I burn a flag, I must ask, am I endangering anyone through setting a fire? No, if done carefully.
    If I burn a flag, I must ask, do I clean up the ashes afterwards to avoid littering? Yes.
    If I burn a flag, I must ask, am I doing it at a place where I am allowed to be? Yes.

    Let me burn my flags.

    Reply

62. Maybe they’re unhappy with something about America, that’s why people burn the flag..

    Reply

63. The Court struck down the Flag Protection Act, making it known that the act of burning flags is protected under the 1st Amendment

    Reply

64. Thank you to the U.S. government for letting me burn flags if I desire, I pass on the activity only because the smell of burning polyester is not my preferred pastime.

    Reply

65. In this case, there was the Flag Protection Act that prohibit burning flags. How it is part of Freedom of Speech the Court decided that individuals are able to burning flags without repression.

    Reply

66. The congress passes the Flag protection act of 1989. Gladly, Eichmann burned the flag in a protest situation. He went to court and the Supreme Court that this Flag protection Act violated the freedom of expression.

    Reply

67. Congress passed the Flag protection act of 1989 which prohibited the burning of the American flag or anything similar to it. Eichman burned the American flag on the steps of the U.S. capitol while protesting against the government’s domestic and foreign policy. The court ruled in favor of Eichman and stated that the act did violate the freedom of expression protected by the first amendment. The court struck down the act because it had intended to suppress the free of expression and the content of the expression.

    Reply

68. Surprise! You can burn flags on a federal and state level, just don’t get charged with arson.

    Reply

69. Similar from Texas v Johnson, the court struck down the law because they restricted the freedom of expression. It’s argued that the burning is allowed in disposal ceremony, but then why is it prohibited from it being set ablaze at a political protest that was the opinion of Justice Brennan.

    Reply

70. This case is closely tied to Texas v. Johnson because they both involve state and federal violations of statues meant to prevent flag desecration. The court narrowly ruled that the law was unconstitutional and struck it down.

    Reply

71. In this case the SC exercised their power to review federal law and its constitutionality. According to this act congress made the desecration of the American flag and other items like it. The act did allow for proper disposal of worn flags. It in a split decision the court struck down the law. The court decided that the goal of the act was to limit the content of the expression related to burning the flag and therefore decided that this law was unconstitutional.

    Reply

72. […] A. distinguish Texas v. Johnson (1989), p. 92  AND  United States v. Eichman (1990), p. 88, 139.  What is the difference between these two cases?  2-4 […]

    Reply

73. Anshu NidamanuriNov 16, 2020
    This case ruled that the Flag Protection Act which was passed by congress prohibiting the destruction of the American flag was shut down due to the suppression of freedom of expression.
    Reply
    Matt Springer
    Matt SpringerNov 16, 2020
    In United States v. Eichman, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government’s domestic and foreign policy. The CQ of the case is did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment? The COurt said, in a 5-4 vote, ruled in a similar way to the last case and struck down the law. This was because struck the law “asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.”
    Reply
    Nay Tjatur
    Nay TjaturNov 15, 2020
    The Court in this case ruled that the Flag Protection Act is a violation of the First Amendment, because the state is asserting its interest only in suppressing the freedom of expression.
    Reply
    Elizabeth Peralta
    Elizabeth PeraltaNov 12, 2020
    In this case the court held that the Flag Protection Act passed by congress was in violation of the first amendment right of freedom of expression
    Reply
    Emma Whaley
    Emma WhaleyNov 5, 2020
    Following the ruling in Texas v Johnson, congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 that stated, “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…” The only question left after deciding that the conduct was expressive and that flag burning DOES enjoy first amendment protection, is if the flag protection act is sufficiently distinct from the Texas statute that it may be constitutionally applied to proscribe the appellee’s expressive conduct. The supreme court says it is not. They found that it was clear that the government interest in protecting the physical integrity of the flag is related to the suppression of free expression because it rests on the perceived need to preserve the flag’s status as a symbol of the nation. This interest in protecting the flag’s symbolic value is directly related to the suppression of expression, which entitles it to “most exacting scrutiny”, as in Texas v Johnson. Like in Johnson, the interest cannot justify the first amendment infringement. They found that this act went beyond the government’s ability to create national symbols and encourage their respectful treatment by criminally proscribing expressive conduct because of its likely communicative impact.
    Reply
    Liliana Diaz
    Liliana DiazNov 1, 2020
    I agree with the Court that the fact that the flag was allowed to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibited the burning of the flag when it was in a political protect context made it clear that it was related to the suppression of free expression.
    Reply
    Ben Lee
    Ben LeeNov 1, 2020
    Following Texas v. Johnson, congress set out to try to burn flag burning. They promptly passed the flag protection act. this criminalized actions such as mutilating or burning the flag (amongst others). Congress specifically passed thjis statute with Johnson in mind. The statute was intended to protect the physical integrity of the flag rather than preventing enraged onlookers as in Johnson. The court found that because the flag is a clear symbol, the statute criminalizes only negative actions(mutilations…), and it makes exceptions for positive ones (ceremony); congress is attempting to outlaw speech it does not like
    Reply
    Jyah Vora
    Jyah VoraOct 29, 2020
    In this case, Eichman set a flag on fire on the stairs of the U.S. Capitol in regards to protests. However, the Flag Protection Act of 1989 practically state that you cannot do anything malicious to the U.S, unless the flag was old and worn. The court ruled this act to be in violation of Freedom of Expression protected under the First Amendment. The court reasoned that the Act was content-based and therefore was related to the suppression of freedom of expression.
    Reply
    Yj Hwang
    Yj HwangDec 12, 2019
    Similar to symbolic speech. Outlawing violence against the flag infringes upon 1st amendment rights for expression.
    Reply
    Monalisa Mensah
    Monalisa MensahNov 10, 2019
    Justice Brennan argued that the allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made it clear that the asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of the expression. In short, the decision expands expression because it strikes down as unconstitutional a statute whose prohibition wasn’t explicitly content-related but was nevertheless principally aimed at limiting symbolic speech.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 6, 2019
    the Court quickly disposed of the Flag Protection Act of 1989 because they ruled that not being able to burn the flag would be in clear violation of the 1st amendment since it was seen this the act of flag burning could be seen as an expression.
    Reply
    Omar Leon
    Omar LeonNov 6, 2019
    Just like in Texas v. Johnson, the court protected the action under freedom of speech as a for of expression. I think that these two rulings are important as we see that the court does protect the amendments of the constitution, even in scenarios that would be considered offensive and disrespectful by many. It is an important action as often times, the general public believes that the court and the government in general does not care about the rights of the people.
    Reply
    Crystal Lopez
    Crystal LopezNov 5, 2019
    The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was in clear violation of the First amendment since flag burning is an expressive conduct. The court reasoned that it was clear that the government’s interest was related to the suppression of free speech which makes it unconstitutional.
    Reply
    Alfredo Navarro
    Alfredo NavarroNov 5, 2019
    This was an easy case to understand and one where the SC used its judiciary power to strike down a legislative action that violated the first amendment as the Flag Protection Act of 1989 was blatantly restricting one side of speech in favor of an opposing side of that speech.
    Reply
    Marissa Scavelli
    Marissa ScavelliNov 4, 2019
    Congress passed the Flag Protection Act in 1989 making it a crime to destroy the American flag. Shortly after in United States v. Eichman, the Supreme Court struck down the Flag Protection Act. In this case, the court struck down the act because “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.” Basically, the government’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol does not outweigh peoples First Amendment rights to disparage that symbol through expressive acts, like burning.
    Reply
    Andrew Tuider
    Andrew TuiderNov 4, 2019
    The federal law in question was made in direct response to the court’s ruling in Texas v Johnson, but prohibiting mistreatment of the flag without regard to any message being conveyed to circumvent its ruling. The fact that the court once again struck down the law is a good example of why it is important to have an independent judiciary
    Reply
    Henry Jiang
    Henry JiangNov 3, 2019
    The Court that the Flag Protection Act issued by Congress was unconstitutional since “its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression.”
    Reply
    Brooke Saunders
    Brooke SaundersNov 3, 2019
    Similar to Texas v Johnson, the Court found that the Act violated the First Amendment because its interest is with the suppression of free speech and the content of the speech, both of which are unconstitutional.
    Reply
    Ines Josefina Castaneda
    Ines Josefina CastanedaNov 3, 2019
    The court said that this law limited the freedom of expression in which it can be agreed since people can tend to do this in protests.
    Reply
    Sylvia Waz
    Sylvia WazNov 3, 2019
    The court struck down an Act of Congress that made it illegal to mutilate a flag unless it was to dispose of it. They deemed it unconstitutional because, like in Texas v. Johnson, the government cannot limit freedom of expression. The state interest did not outweigh what the protesters were trying to demonstrate.
    Reply
    Daniel Garcia
    Daniel GarciaNov 3, 2019
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Flag Protection Act passed by Congress was unconstitutional because they deemed flag burning to be an act of expression that is protected under the freedom of speech clause. The ruling is consistent with Texas v. Johnson. I think this particular case does a really nice job of showcasing the powers of the Legislative and Judicial branches. I would argue that a majority of Congress disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson and thus crafted a law to combat that decision. However, the Supreme Court still struck the Act down. As a result, it is clear that even though the Judicial branch does not craft legislation, they still have a tremendous amount of power by having the ability to strike down acts of Congress as unconstitutional (Judicial Review.)
    Reply
    Jason Davis
    Jason DavisNov 3, 2019
    The precedent for this case seems to have come from Texas v Johnson, the 5-4 split by the Court is even the same.This case might have been necessary to now set a national precdent to all future flag burning related incidents and subsequent arrests.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 5, 2017
    The court’s ruling would be best described by the statement within West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ; “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 5, 2017
    I agree with the Court’s decision. I would add that although the dissent argues that the law should have been upheld because the “Federal Government has a legitimate interest in protecting the symbolic value of the American flag,” I believe that was what the majority did by protecting the right of free expression in this case. The idea of protecting the “symbolic value” of the flag is subjective, and contrary to the quote from West Virginia v. Barnette that we have seen more than once in class, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.” That kind of officially prescribed orthodoxy seems to be what the dissent is advocating for by wanting to allow the government to be the gatekeepers of free expression for how the U.S. flag should be used.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 5, 2017
    This case is very prevalent in today’s civil disagreement with groups such as ANTIFA burning flags and veterans or other citizens stopping it. With this disagreement how should the cops handle the situation of a flag being burned this case shows it would be a freedom for someone to do. But these veterans and citizens are feeling extremely offended. Would this not be considered possible hate speech? if not what is the difference? Hate speech does not only pertain to a race.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 5, 2017
    Although I personally do not agree with the idea of burning the flag as a means to protest; I do agree with the decision that was reached by the Court. The act of burning the flag can be seen as a means of protest that equates something such as a public protest. In which case, both of those acts are expressions that are guaranteed by the Freedom of Expression.
    Reply
    Patrick Scaletta
    Patrick ScalettaNov 5, 2017
    I think of a case from 353 when President Lincoln enacted a naval blockade (an act of war) without Congress’ consent. The Court ruled that the President’s actions were not unconstitutional as the president need not wait for legislative authority to protect the nation. I mention this as I am curious as to when the preservation of the nation will be an interest compelling enough to outweigh the speech rights of individuals. There may come a point where civil and social unrest may be significant enough to where speech rights must be curtailed if the moral of the nation were to deteriorate.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userNov 3, 2017
    The first question the Court should consider is whether the interest in preserving the value of that symbol is unrelated to suppression of the ideas that flag burners are trying to express. I think the answer depends, at least in part, on what those ideas are. By burning the ideal of America’s collective commitment to freedom and equality, the flag burner challanges that the majority has forsaken that commitment and that continued respect for the flag is nothing more than hypocrisy above all else.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 18, 2016
    1. Background- The 1989 Flag Protection Act was challenged in 1990 after Shawn Eichman was charged and convicted of flag desecration for burning a flag at a Capitol Hill protest. The case was consolidated with a similar appeal from Seattle.
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 18, 2016
    Legal question: was the Flag Protection Act a violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause?
    Reply
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 14, 2015
    I personally do not agree with SCOTUS holding in this case. Although the destruction of a flag is personal expression, it shows incredible disrespect for all that the United States stands for, and to some, can be seen as offensive, if not more offensive, to speech such as that of the Ku Klux Klan. Because patriotism is involved, i believe that this kind of speech also holds a strong probability of disturbing the peace or causing unlawful action. I do, however, agree with destruction of a physical manifestion of a symbol doing no damage to the symbol itself.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 14, 2015
    Brief posted yall.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 14, 2015
    How is burning the flag any different from burning any other piece of personal property? That it offends others is not a reason by itself to prevent somebody’s freedom of expression; that it offends soldiers is no greater reason. The rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are not ones that one can earn greater freedom to violate through military service.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 14, 2015
    As we discussed in class, Burning a flag is a way of expressing your opinion in different method. It sends a different tone and message as opposed to verbally saying something. So long as it is done safely and does not threaten the safety of others, it should absolutely be allowed. This is one of those acts that although may face no legal violations, faces social ones. You will be punished by society for such actions (in the form of bad looks, no support, insults, etc) as it is very distasteful. I’ve watched videos online where protestors are walking all over the US flag and an army veteran comes up and “saves it”(which Is kind of ironic since they pledge and oath to protect the constitution, yet here attempt to suppress one’s first amendment rights). As much as I respect the service of our military, I would be happy to defend that person’s right to stomp on the flag. It makes no sense to me that someone would get angry enough to steal another’s property or punch them in the face for stomping on a flag that the “Stomper” owns, yet if that same person instead of stomping on the flag verbally said the US sucks( in much harsher terms), it would receive no more than a middle finger in response (for the most part).
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 13, 2015
    The same negligent message endorsed in Texas v. Johnson was found in this case as well. Gregory Lee Johnson also returned and continued to symbolize the disregard that is found for individuals that choose to desecrate the American flag. You have this absurd message promoted where preserving the identity of a symbol, our flag, is not more important than freely pursuing the right of degrading it. Justice Stevens made a point where his views in Texas v. Johnson applied in this case as well. I concur with his point. “The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for — and our history demonstrates that they are — it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration”.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 15, 2014
    The mistreatment of a US flag should be protected under freedom of speech
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 15, 2014
    I absolutely do not think it is respectful to burn our nations flag in a innapropriate way. I do think it is constitutional to allow the action. I compare this case similar to pledging allegance to the flag.

    -matthew j payauys
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 15, 2014
    The Supreme Court made the right call in voting in favor Eichman. While I do not agree with flag burning as the right way to protest, I do agree that people the right to do so if that is how they feel they can best express their displeasure with their country.
    -Egle S.
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 15, 2014
    It’s a symbolic gesture and I really like that the court reasons that the government cannot force people to follow its dogma or stop them from having dissenting opinions of government actions. i think if they prohibited this type of behavior we would be brainwashed like in authoritarian government’s where everyone hangs a picture of Stalin in their living room or another artifact that furthers the government’s opinion.
    -Gabriela Bedolla
    Reply
    Comments above copied from original document
    Deleted user
    Deleted userOct 15, 2014
    I understand why people burn the flag; they’re unhappy with something about America. What I found ironic is the burn the symbol of America which protects them from doing so and gives them the ability. I feel the action of the burning the flag because of something they find unjust highlights the greatness of the country to be able to do so. However, I agree, even though I disagree with the action, that it is okay to burn the flag in protest. -d. Mortimer
    Reply

    Reply