Flag Burning. It's Legal....but NOT right....?

The Street vs. New York case had an immense impression on society, as well affecting the way we view our constitutional rights for the future. Sydney Street was convicted of burning the flag on the corner of a street, in response to a civil rights leading being murdered. Sydney Street had a large crowd in the road watching him burn the American flag as a protest and saying, “We don’t need an American flag.”
The final ruling of the case decided it was unconstitutional to convict Street for his words, even as he burned the American flag.

The final ruling has made a major impact in society by proving once again that everyone has a constitutional right to burn the American flag, just as long as they do not promote acts of hate speech that may cause harm to an individual. This Supreme Court’s decision influenced future cases because it was used as a reference pertaining to an individual’s 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment rights. This case set the “pace” for an individual’s right to burn the American flag in protest of their country doings something they disagree with.

Sydney Street violated the 1425-16-D of the Penal Law of New York and was sent to trial. Though it was deemed unconstitutional to try him for his words, he was still convicted of burning the flag and uttering the words, “If they let that happen to Meridith, then we don’t need the American flag.” While these words uttered to the police officer may be appeared to be hateful speech to the officer (at least enough to arrest him), the Supreme Court decided the conviction cannot be upheld. This held true even in many future cases regarding the same subject and still proves that this case had an immense impact on American politics in the future.

The Spence v. Washington case was affected by the Street v. New York decision because it was used as a reference for someone’s right to desecrate the flag. The college student just put a “peace” symbol on the flag outside of his room. The gentlemen taped a symbol, representing peace, to show his feelings about the recent military actions in Cambodia and recent Kent State University shootings. The court used parts of the opinions from the Street v. New York as a reference because it had a similar idea in that “expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers” (Street v. New York).

The Spence case was a little different from the last because the student owned the flag and was on his own private property. Two more important factors were that the student had no intentions of afflicting harm to others for the making of the flag/symbol, and was doing this in protest of the recent domestic/foreign affairs in a peaceful manner. Both of these cases were an important reminder to the Supreme Court that even though many feel desecrating the flag could mean something hateful, or may cause harm, the individual has their 1^st Amendment rights regardless. The case of Spence v. Washington and the opinion from the justices made it clear that taping a “peace” symbol was a form of expression. Using the Street case as a reference proved again that a common citizen’s freedom of expression must be protected from their government.  

The same results happened in the Johnson v. Texas case where a gentleman burned the American flag after marching down the streets of Dallas, Texas. This clearly shows again that the Street v. New York set a strong pace to protect an individual’s right to burn the American flag. Although many people in Dallas were appalled by Johnson’s actions, the Supreme Court still ruled in his favor stating that he has protection under the 1^st Amendment. This opinion, and with the many cases afterwards,  made it clear that many Americans and those in congress felt it was necessary to enact a form of protection for the flag. This did happen in Texas, but the Johnson v. Texas court still ruled in his favor because of his freedom of speech rights.

Even now many Americans do not understand that they have a right to burn the American flag as long as it does not cause any harm to another person. While this does anger most Americans, as do other similar forms of expression against their homeland, the citizens must understand that 1^st Amendment is that powerful. Even when laws are in place to protect the flag, an American’s right to express their feelings is held with the upmost protection. In other words, the Supreme Court knew there were many laws against desecrating the flag but still had to protect Johnson because of the power of the 1^st Amendment.

While mourning for a person standing up for his rights, Sydney Street was convicted of uttering words against his country while burning the flag. The Supreme Court defended him, making it clear that every American has a right to freely express their thoughts. The impact this case had on future cases was extremely important and it clearly shows the constitution protects its people from the government. This case certainly set a great example in last half of the 20^th Century and continues to prove the Supreme Court that burning the American Flag is acceptable, even though it is perceived as a “hateful” form of expression.

It is clear that this case influenced American politics in how the Supreme Court perceives flag burning as a sign of protest, but not necessarily as a sign of violence. Even to this day, many Americans understand that these decisions have proven that the constitution will protect them when they protest in these ways. For these Americans that contribute to the flag burning phenomena they must remind themselves that this leaves them in the media “spot light.” The Supreme Court appears that they will always defend people in the future that burn the flag in protest, even if the state or people disagree with what they are doing.  

Judging by the past cases, it appears that the future of flag burning will remain “illegal” but still protected under the first amendment. It is unfortunate that many Americans believe that it is acceptable to burn a Quran but not the American flag as a sign of protest. Many Americans believe that this is appropriate but it could be only to suit their political beliefs, ignoring the constitutional rights of other Americans. Though both of these examples of expression are highly criticized, condemned, and frowned upon, an American is protected under the 1^st Amendment when the burn their country’s flag.

*My personal opinion? I think you might as well call it hate speech. Especially when you’re putting yourself in the exact same shoes of our enemies….