My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
@Ali Kiwan You do realize that has nothing too do with freedom of speech? IF you decide too engage in what is called "hate speech" that is your problem, and that is legal. The only issue with committing too hate speech is that you become unreliable because of your open bias, against a certain group of people. Are you trying too say that leftists are looking too make society be less homophobic, racist,(and etc)? You also say "leftist want to cleanse society from non-conformity" but is it not conservatives who want too maintain traditions and thus push away non-conformity?
@Ali Kiwan I wasn't necessarily deflecting more asking about what your original comment meant. You said that leftist were putting upon themselves too "cleanse" society. With this comment you also said that the left behaves towards a presence of "hate speech", which i'm assuming your speaking about "cancel culture". Then you go off with some other points. Let's start with the idea that leftist are censoring and removing entirely, for starters left people aren't doing this. This isn't necessarily true, as long as you follow the guidelines and if you don't mess those up you don't get removed, simple. You also say that the left is making racist and hate speech flexible too effect anyone, well again that's just generalizing, and the ideas of racism and hate speech do change like several other things, i am not saying that it constitutes left people too ban others, neither it is ok too reach with their definitions. The left only "cleanses" because the right could never. If they have please tell me when they have, and a article. You said conservative values are freedom and order in the respective country, conservative by definition is conserving traditional values. This is what I said already Conservatives are the same people that push away non-conformity, which includes gender, sexuality, religion and even sometimes race. I ask again through all of this, are you saying that leftist are looking too make society less homophobic, racist(and etc)? Is there an issue with the left doing this? I also saw you used "snowflakes" when both sides are very sensitive too anything against their views, so that point is just null.
@Ali Kiwan I do not have time right now too answer everything you've stated but I will answer the ones that have stood out too me. You have been told that your opinion for saying things have been deemed racist. If they did say black people are above the law, I agree with that sentiment no one is above it. In this case this is obviously not hate speech. Although I'm not sure the context of it, from what you are saying of course that is unreasonable. You say left-leaning companies are dominated by media companies, ok what about facebook...? Facebook has actively let a fact checker that has ties with right leaning groups fact check it's ads, facebook the #1 social media platform. Although we can have diverse thought, hate speech still needs to be regulated and not allowed too come out. Hate speech again is protected by the 1st Amendment, but as i said some people are removed from sites like youtube because they are performing hate speech. This is most likely because they might be inciting violence, and inciting a political ideology that is harmful in society in general like Neo-Nazi's. If you believe Neo Nazi's should have their own platform too incite or inflict harmful ideologies because it's part of their "free speech" that is just morally correct. Being tolerant of the intolerant just leads the tolerant to be destroyed, this is the paradox of tolerance. I'm quite surprised you believe the left are the only "racists" in the political arena. It seems that privilege has flown over your head, and you really don't know what it means. I'll tell you why what you said in both of these is just completely unaware of wording and what they mean. The left doesn't want too raise blacks, Asians, and other minorities on top of white people, that isn't what is occurring they just want equality. This is something common in white supremacy ideas where they feel like they are the victims, when as a matter of fact are the people that gain in our society and have for past centuries. Which ties into what you call "privilege" privilege doesn't mean you are ahead of everyone and are better, that sort of ideology is actually what White Supremacist believe(that they are superior then other races). Privilege means that White people get too their goal easier, compared too blacks,Hispanics, and Asians. For minorities too reach their goal it is completely different and involves all sorts obstacles. THAT is privilege. If people are saying too be ashamed of your skin, no one wants you too feel like that(and those who do are wrong), if you come too that conclusion on your own, that is a different story. Allowing Racist and Homophobic people in our communites is counterproductive again, Paradox of Tolerance My main point is how conservatives gauge for traditional social values and thus push out the non-conformity. (I'll answer your other comment separately).
Here's my thoughts: Yes, it's free speech, but a VERY immoral use of it. People have the right to do it, but it is something I could never endorse as a method of protest. I personally feel it's disrespectful to members and veterans of the armed forces and divides people rather than bringing attention to issues and uniting to promote positive change.
I don't believe in flag burning, but I also feel that laws against it are more disrespectful to the flag than burning it. It stands for freedom, even the freedom to be an asshole!
Also he was not the one who stole it so he can't be charged with destruction of private property as he most likely know didn't know it was stolen and even if he did it would be a small fine
Burning the flag is an act of treason and technically a declaration of war, and people would be given the death penalty in other countries. Why would you even live in America if you hate it so much?
In my country, we are not even allowed to let the flag touch the ground, so its shocking to know that this kind of actions are permitted in the US. I mean flag symbolizes the country, and the country is the people...so a citizen burning their flag is quite weird for me (unless they are rebelling).
So the flag was stolen from building in the area? While that doesn't change my view on the act of burning or otherwise desecrated "respected objects", it is something else the Texas courts could have convicted Johnson on.
While I agree with the decision of the court on this one, I don't think Johnson had the right to burn that specific flag. It would have been one thing if he went out and bought it and then burned it but he didn't. It was a stolen flag that was then burned. That's vandalism. Texas may have had more luck if they argued the vandalism angle instead of "but it's the American flag", but who knows?
@@HorrorMetalDnD keep in mind that if I remember correctly this was an official US flag on a Us government building. Those types of flags down come cheap.
@@zacharymarentette5269 So? let him replace the shitty bit of cloth, that stood for warmongering he DID rightfully oppose. The US are a weird country, having deposed a king as nothing should be given godlike adoration and unlimited powers and then replacing it with ridiulous amounts of idolatry and quasi religious ceremonial around them. That is far beyond silly. It is also harmful. With such behavior you replace respect for values with respect for empty symbolism. Ending with thousands being "offended" by somebody kneeling during the country's official commercial jingle. *yawn*
That certainly would be a more understandable argument. It's much the same way that stealing someone's book and burning it as a statement against the author or whoever would be protected under the first amendment for free speech, but not protected from laws about destruction of property. However, I imagine the punishment may be comparably lesser than a year in prison. However, it seemed clearly that the law in which they tried him in violation of was the one specifically about flag burning, rather than any one about vandalism in general. Presumably if he did the same thing with a flag he owned, he would have been tried the same way. The case itself likely aimed for whether that specific law was constitutional.
@@Jake-rs9nq yet there is an even more liberal justice named William Douglas. He believed that trees should get a standing and representation in courts.
@@milesjolly6173 I agree for two reasons: One, it feels VERY disrespectful to members of the armed forces (many of whom died) who protected these freedoms. Second of all, it's also VERY divisive and actually hampers ability to unify people for positive change when necessary.
Yep. Burning the flag is one of the worst and most disrespectful things you can do and ami hate any who do it; however, they still are allowed to do it.
One of my favorite cases. Look at Justice Scalia and his vote. He clearly hated that the flag was burned. He probably wanted the flag burner to go to jail. But he voted for liberty and the right to express yourself as a citizen. This is one of the cases that transcends bias, political leaning or personal wants. Unfortunately these cases are not the common occurrence and mostly conservatives vote for conservative laws even if they restrict liberty. And the same is the case for left leaning judges.
His conviction was unconstitutional but what he did was illegal. Stealing that flag and destroying it is analogous to stealing stuff off your own garden and destroying it. Both of which, can easily get you convicted.
how can you steal stuff, if you already own it? I think you didn't think your analogy through. Yes citizens pay taxes, but no one citizen owns government privately.
This the decor I’ve test to see which right wingers aren’t truly in favour of freedom of speech and Brandenburg is the test to see which left wingers aren’t truly in favour of freedom of speech.
@@The_Libationist as a leftist, I agree that strong and heated rhetoric should be protected, even if the speech is vile, if there is no evidence that the intent was to incite violence.
5-4 was the split. Is burning a flag really that hard to understand as free speech? Is this just my mind taking freedom for granted but that seems like a rather obvious expression of speech. Sure it isn't verbal but...5-4. This isn't really a Roe v. Wade level complicated issue.
Honestly, I was just as surprised when I first learned of how close this case was. That said, we are an extremely nationalistic country, and the more nationalistic a country is, the more sacred the flag tends to become.
I know right? 4 of those judges weren't really concerned about the Constitution when it didn't work in their favor. Kind of like liberals and conservatives in politics huh?
It shows us that strict constructionists aren't always Conservative, and loose constructionists aren't always liberal. It's more about political biases and afflictions that protecting the constitution to many justices.
Maybe because relentless degeneracy and being absolute scumbag of a human doesn't fall under freedom of speech idiot. If you abuse a right you don't deserve it
I think it's crazy that anyone would think it's ok to imprison someone for burning a flag for any longer than they could be imprisoned for burning any other object. Like, if you made a massive pure out of burning flags, and the fire got out of control, and you didn't start it on your property, and you accidentally burned down someone else's house as a result, then I would get it. However, if all you've done is burnt a single flag, I don't see why that should be considered any different than burning a newspaper, or a book, or a cross, or a Bible, or a qu'ran, or any other seemingly important object.
Opinion: Well thought out legal arguments with respect to the Constitution and fundamental rights. Dissent: But a lot of people REALLY REALLY like the flag though!
I can genuinely see both sides of this. The thing is though, Americans only have freedom of speech because they live in the United States of America, which is what the Flag represents. I won't say if it should be banned or not, but anyone who burns the flag that represents their right to freedom of speech among many other things in the first place is both an idiot and a phenomenally spoiled, ungrateful scum of the Earth.
If you are in favour of free speech only when you agree (or at least, does not disagree too much) with the content of the speech, then you are NOT in favour of free speech
I'm kinda surprised that there was no mention of destruction of government or private property. As he took it off of a government building. If the flag was his property, would it have gone this far?
He was usually a swing vote on free speech and criminal rights cases. His methodology was coherent and airtight, and not ideological like a lot of court watchers made him out to be.
As someone who loves America and the flag, and is very patriotic, you should be able to burn one. The reason why I love America so much is because it is so free, allowing all opinions to be heard, and it should stay that way. The government should never limit any opinions no matter how stupid.
I can genuinely see both sides of this. The thing is though, Americans only have freedom of speech because they live in the United States of America, which is what the Flag represents. I won't say if it should be banned or not, but anyone who burns the flag that represents their right to freedom of speech among many other things in the first place is both an idiot and scum of the Earth.
Plus, burning the flag can have many meanings. Sure, it could be considered a protest against something American, but it can also symbolize the burning passion many feel for this country. Plus, I know thins is silly, but could you imagine how badass someone going into battle in a movie with a burning flag?
Thank you Mr. Beats! You make amazing videos and you should be more popular! Every time I want to learn about something about social studies I go to you.
Fun fact: the US military is the biggest burner of American flags. According to the US Flag Code: "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." Hence, the practice of flag burning can be viewed as entirely patriotic--when the flag is dishonored (perhaps by the action of a president), it is the citizen's duty to burn it.
@@major_kukri2430It could very well be argued that someone might see the flag itself as in good condition but the symbol as tarnished enough to warrant burning, this is ofc info ring the obvious free speech of burning the flag
In times before the American War for Independence people burned mock representations of King George III. People didn’t like their king and they expressed themselves that way. Some may have views it as far from offensive but it showed what would become as the first amendment.
This case still upsets me to this day, not because of the outcome, for which I 100% agree, but the asinine dissent. The dissent sounds like they either don't actually care about the spirit of the law or were afraid of their legacy being perceived as "the one who said flag burning was okay." I think it's a little bit of column A and B.
D Brick tbh my opinions have changed on this issue, I don’t get personally offended if people burn the flag anymore they can do whatever they want and I’m okay with that. Also what’s a “constant toady”?
@@viccytor5633 but what about the veterans who died to save our fat asses. Despising the American flag is a slap in the face who gave their life to save it
@@Mike-fu3xd It's a piece of fabric. And who cares if it "disrespects" veterans? That's a matter of opinion. Asides, nobody has a legal obligation to respect veterans. So, while burning the flag might be considered morally wrong (depending on who you ask), it's legally/constitutionally protected.
@RejectMonkenityreturntoFESH They do. In case you didn't know, saying the n word is protected speech, and it's still protected speech no matter who you say it to.
@@trangvophuong6919 No, it's not! Bad language, at well as slander/libel and certain levels of hate speech, are among the *exceptions* that are *not* protected as free speech!
As an Englishman, I find it amazing that a bit of red, white and blue bunting attracts so much strong feeling. The only official regulation in the UK regarding the Union Jack is a Royal Navy regulation that says old flags mustn't be cut up for cleaning rags.
I remember before this happened a father son duo jumped into Wrigley Field to burn an American flag. Rick Monday, a Cubs or Dodgers outfielder rescued the flag to the delight of the crowd.
Scalia was a scholar who was logically consistent. What is illogical and inconsistent is the way we line up on politically opposing sides and sometimes, the the battle-lines make no sense. Protecting free speech should be a conservative value, and for Scalia it was. It's the 'other' conservatives who are inconsistent.
@@charlesdoyle3630 I have since did that, and while he and I may differ on our politics he voiced his opinion on the issue well and I am partially glad we could see eye to eye on the issue.
Somehow I missed this video. I’m surprised to see Scalia voting for the majority on this one. I bet if Thomas were on the court during this time, he would have voted the other way.
Yeah it is one of those stealth cases that most peoole never hear about. The only reason I knew of it was because of a public lecture from a lawyer. It is really sad it doesn't get talked about like it should because it is a big case on personal autonomy and if the state has the ability to control your body for societal benifit regardless of what side of the debate you are on.
It's way worse than that. Some don't even call out immoral actions of the US government, as if no wrong can be committed by it. Supporters of BOTH major parties are guilty of this.
Would Rehnquist note also apply in case of (acknowledged) religious symbols ? Since they are "regarded by millions and millions of Americans with a mystical reverence" ?
I look at this case in the same way I look at Brandenburg V Ohio. We may not agree with the burning of certain objects but the right to freely express yourself shouldn’t be limited. If the court fully sided with Texas then they would’ve had to overturn Brandenburg v Ohio
No, it's not. There are already certain exceptions like bad language, hate speech, and slander/libel. The real question is if burning the Flag is considered to exceed those limits.
@@Compucles Freedom of speech only applies in terms of referring to the government not individuals or groups. The reason why hate speech is illegal is because it refers to an individual or a group not associated with the government. And slender is not technically illegal but you can be sued for spreading misinformation about an individual or group.
Alyssa G He was a communist and Pres. Reagan was a conservative, small gov supporter. It could've been foreign policy or really anything else. Reagan's views were very far away from the extreme left wing. The WWIII comment seems to suggest that it was against Reagan's aggressive strategy against the USSR and Reagan's hatred of communism
Chief Justice: William Rheinquist President During this time: George H. W. Bush Argued March 21, 1989 Decided June 21, 1989 Case Duration: 92 days Decision: 5-4 in favor of Johnson (Marshall, Brennan Jr., Blackmun, Kennedy, Scalia. Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, White for Texas)
I actually have multiple opinions on this one. If you're gonna burn the flag, you should expect that people'll bully you. However, no government should outlaw any sort of flag burning when the person burning the flag, owns that *specific* flag. Think about it as, you buy a flag, bring it to some kind of protest, and then set it a blaze. Very provocative, but the flag was your property. Lastly, You should NOT steal a flag to burn it in protest, not from the government, nor any individual. That's theft, destruction of property, and/or vandalism. The first amendment doesn't apply to you stealing a flag from someone or somewhere and burning it in the street in front of the flag owner.
All I can say is sometimes America lets me down, but other times I could not be more proud. A country that protects even those who call for its end is one to believe in.
If the dissenting argument was that the flag held special reverence to people and therefore should have higher protections, wouldn’t religious text, such as the Quran’s desecrated in front of prisoners by US military personnel, also fit that?
Don't think he called for the end of the bill of rights. Weird how you think anyone anti-american also hates freedom, as if the two things are connected at all.
@@Ry_TSG I didn't say he was anti bill of rights because he was anti USA, the US has done some majorly screwed up things and it's absolutely right to protest it. I said he was anti bill of rights because of his specific political ideology. The system of government he is advocating for wouldn't include the same rights as the bill of rights does.
@@4u1004me Why not? Communism isn't just when "the government does stuff", you know. The intention of communism is to have everything, including companies, be democratically run by its constituents. Every "communist" country in history has been the epitome of the problem communism was intended to solve (elite class running society). Of course, communism wouldn't exactly work in the real world even if it wasn't made into a dictatorship, but to say that it's anti-bill of rights is just assuming things.
@@Ry_TSG You can't have freedom of speech in a communist country because then anti revolutionary thoughts would be rampant and challenge the state. I know of the idealized version of communism that communists naively believe is possible, but every single time communism has been tried it ended up in brutal dictatorships with millions dead from famines and purges. It's not just me assuming shit, it's a historical observation. You can have the best intentions, but it can still go to shit, and communism always does.
@@4u1004me A “communist” dictatorship isn’t really communist if it goes against the point of communism though. Sure, it’s centrally planned, a dictatorship isn’t the system communism is supposed to use. It’s like saying you can have democratically elected monarchy; its directly contradictory.
It's ironic that the Texas law is phrased in exactly the kind of way in which many laws protecting religious scriptures are written. Yet, I'm quite confident that if someone had tried to sue someone for burning a Quran, Texas would have laughed them out of the room claiming it's protected under free speech
Wow, I didn't know the Supreme Court decision was so close.. 5 to 4... If just one justice had gone the other way, it would be illegal to burn the flag. Although I would never burn our flag, I believe it is extremely important that we have the right to do so. If we didn't, we wouldn't be living under a true democracy.
Though I fully "support" flag burning as a freedom of expression, the stealing of private property and the absolute degeneracy displayed outside the convention (spray painting walls and littering the area with filth) should've been called into question more than "is flag burning ok."
"government can ban speech because it hurts people's fee-fees" is one of those dumb things. Can "bad" speech get social pushback? Absolutely. Not only can it but it should. But that is different from government sanction against that speech.
You'll find that most people from most other countries don't really care. We're not raised from birth to worship the national flag in my country. As you long you bought that flag yourself, then you're burning your own stuff.
@@Cupit29 Hardly true, the U.S is actually one of the few nations to formally legalize flag desecration. Even western countries like Portugal, France and Germany prohibit burning the national flag under penalty of law.
@@actanonverba3041because those countries aren’t free lmfao. If they have hate speech laws wtf makes you think they would allow flag burning. Pussy nations
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
The speech most in need of protection is the most unpopular speech.
eric veneto AMEN!
Do you feel triggered?
@Ali Kiwan You do realize that has nothing too do with freedom of speech? IF you decide too engage in what is called "hate speech" that is your problem, and that is legal. The only issue with committing too hate speech is that you become unreliable because of your open bias, against a certain group of people. Are you trying too say that leftists are looking too make society be less homophobic, racist,(and etc)? You also say "leftist want to cleanse society from non-conformity" but is it not conservatives who want too maintain traditions and thus push away non-conformity?
@Ali Kiwan
I wasn't necessarily deflecting more asking about what your original comment meant. You said that leftist were putting upon themselves too "cleanse" society. With this comment you also said that the left behaves towards a presence of "hate speech", which i'm assuming your speaking about "cancel culture". Then you go off with some other points. Let's start with the idea that leftist are censoring and removing entirely, for starters left people aren't doing this. This isn't necessarily true, as long as you follow the guidelines and if you don't mess those up you don't get removed, simple. You also say that the left is making racist and hate speech flexible too effect anyone, well again that's just generalizing, and the ideas of racism and hate speech do change like several other things, i am not saying that it constitutes left people too ban others, neither it is ok too reach with their definitions.
The left only "cleanses" because the right could never. If they have please tell me when they have, and a article. You said conservative values are freedom and order in the respective country, conservative by definition is conserving traditional values. This is what I said already Conservatives are the same people that push away non-conformity, which includes gender, sexuality, religion and even sometimes race. I ask again through all of this, are you saying that leftist are looking too make society less homophobic, racist(and etc)? Is there an issue with the left doing this?
I also saw you used "snowflakes" when both sides are very sensitive too anything against their views, so that point is just null.
@Ali Kiwan I do not have time right now too answer everything you've stated but I will answer the ones that have stood out too me.
You have been told that your opinion for saying things have been deemed racist. If they did say black people are above the law, I agree with that sentiment no one is above it. In this case this is obviously not hate speech. Although I'm not sure the context of it, from what you are saying of course that is unreasonable. You say left-leaning companies are dominated by media companies, ok what about facebook...? Facebook has actively let a fact checker that has ties with right leaning groups fact check it's ads, facebook the #1 social media platform.
Although we can have diverse thought, hate speech still needs to be regulated and not allowed too come out. Hate speech again is protected by the 1st Amendment, but as i said some people are removed from sites like youtube because they are performing hate speech. This is most likely because they might be inciting violence, and inciting a political ideology that is harmful in society in general like Neo-Nazi's. If you believe Neo Nazi's should have their own platform too incite or inflict harmful ideologies because it's part of their "free speech" that is just morally correct. Being tolerant of the intolerant just leads the tolerant to be destroyed, this is the paradox of tolerance.
I'm quite surprised you believe the left are the only "racists" in the political arena. It seems that privilege has flown over your head, and you really don't know what it means. I'll tell you why what you said in both of these is just completely unaware of wording and what they mean. The left doesn't want too raise blacks, Asians, and other minorities on top of white people, that isn't what is occurring they just want equality. This is something common in white supremacy ideas where they feel like they are the victims, when as a matter of fact are the people that gain in our society and have for past centuries. Which ties into what you call "privilege" privilege doesn't mean you are ahead of everyone and are better, that sort of ideology is actually what White Supremacist believe(that they are superior then other races). Privilege means that White people get too their goal easier, compared too blacks,Hispanics, and Asians. For minorities too reach their goal it is completely different and involves all sorts obstacles. THAT is privilege. If people are saying too be ashamed of your skin, no one wants you too feel like that(and those who do are wrong), if you come too that conclusion on your own, that is a different story.
Allowing Racist and Homophobic people in our communites is counterproductive again, Paradox of Tolerance
My main point is how conservatives gauge for traditional social values and thus push out the non-conformity. (I'll answer your other comment separately).
I rather burn the flag and hide behind the Constitution than burn the Constitution and hide behind the flag.
Great quote!
Bingo!
Hmm yeah me too
definitely!
Here's my thoughts: Yes, it's free speech, but a VERY immoral use of it. People have the right to do it, but it is something I could never endorse as a method of protest. I personally feel it's disrespectful to members and veterans of the armed forces and divides people rather than bringing attention to issues and uniting to promote positive change.
I don't believe in flag burning, but I also feel that laws against it are more disrespectful to the flag than burning it. It stands for freedom, even the freedom to be an asshole!
i appreciate the clairvoyance despite any difference in opinion we may have brother
Couldn't agree more
And yet, people get imprisoned for burning LGBT flags.
You might be onto something.
you cant be an asshole to a flag
I think if they had charged him with destruction of private property he could of been to prison without much more fuss after that
Well, Johnson appealed his case in a higher court that made all of this fuss.
Likely just a misdeamor
destruction of private property, would only give you a fine and not a full year in prison
Flags are like 30 bucks so a misdemeanor.
Also he was not the one who stole it so he can't be charged with destruction of private property as he most likely know didn't know it was stolen and even if he did it would be a small fine
If the flag is being burned, there are probably more important issues to be worried about.
Well put!
Burning the flag is an act of treason and technically a declaration of war, and people would be given the death penalty in other countries. Why would you even live in America if you hate it so much?
@@jlawless999 But isn't one of the better aspects of the US is that citizens can express their views in such a way and not be punished for it?
Greg Dunaway my house is worth 6 dollars
In my country, we are not even allowed to let the flag touch the ground, so its shocking to know that this kind of actions are permitted in the US. I mean flag symbolizes the country, and the country is the people...so a citizen burning their flag is quite weird for me (unless they are rebelling).
So the flag was stolen from building in the area? While that doesn't change my view on the act of burning or otherwise desecrated "respected objects", it is something else the Texas courts could have convicted Johnson on.
+Zeldagigafan I agree
Johnson didn't steal the flag, it was given to him from a different protestor (the flag was still stolen).
Jon Doe Well the possession and destruction of a stolen object, even if you aren’t the one who stole it, is still a crime though right?
Theft certainly comes to mind. A good American flag is not cheap.
@@bobbyferg9173 Maybe, but only if he was aware that was a stolen flag
While I agree with the decision of the court on this one, I don't think Johnson had the right to burn that specific flag.
It would have been one thing if he went out and bought it and then burned it but he didn't. It was a stolen flag that was then burned. That's vandalism.
Texas may have had more luck if they argued the vandalism angle instead of "but it's the American flag", but who knows?
Should he have served 1 year for that act of vandalism?
You have a good point.
@@HorrorMetalDnD keep in mind that if I remember correctly this was an official US flag on a Us government building. Those types of flags down come cheap.
@@zacharymarentette5269 So? let him replace the shitty bit of cloth, that stood for warmongering he DID rightfully oppose.
The US are a weird country, having deposed a king as nothing should be given godlike adoration and unlimited powers and then replacing it with ridiulous amounts of idolatry and quasi religious ceremonial around them. That is far beyond silly. It is also harmful. With such behavior you replace respect for values with respect for empty symbolism. Ending with thousands being "offended" by somebody kneeling during the country's official commercial jingle. *yawn*
That certainly would be a more understandable argument. It's much the same way that stealing someone's book and burning it as a statement against the author or whoever would be protected under the first amendment for free speech, but not protected from laws about destruction of property. However, I imagine the punishment may be comparably lesser than a year in prison.
However, it seemed clearly that the law in which they tried him in violation of was the one specifically about flag burning, rather than any one about vandalism in general. Presumably if he did the same thing with a flag he owned, he would have been tried the same way. The case itself likely aimed for whether that specific law was constitutional.
I could be wrong but I believe even Scalia one of the most conservative justices supported this case. Am I wrong?
I showed that at the end of the video, yes. Scalia was an originalist, so sometimes that made him seem liberal, believe it or not!
Scalia wrote that if up to him he would arrest all the flag burners but said I am not a King
Also, John Paul Stevens was one of the most liberal judges, and he ruled *against* the majority in this case.
@@Jake-rs9nq yet there is an even more liberal justice named William Douglas. He believed that trees should get a standing and representation in courts.
@@greatkentuckian9032 awesome justice
I hate flag burning like this, but I thought and thought, and yes.
I think the Supreme Court did the right thing here.
Same here. I would never burn a flag but I support the right of others to do so.
@@milesjolly6173 I agree for two reasons: One, it feels VERY disrespectful to members of the armed forces (many of whom died) who protected these freedoms. Second of all, it's also VERY divisive and actually hampers ability to unify people for positive change when necessary.
This case makes America unique. I don't think there is another country where burning the national flag is legally seen as free speech.
@@thunderbird1921 but at the same time, as much as I disagree with people burning the flag, it’s their right to do so and say so.
Yep. Burning the flag is one of the worst and most disrespectful things you can do and ami hate any who do it; however, they still are allowed to do it.
Is it legal to yell "Theater !" in a crowded Firehouse ?
Instant death penalty.
What about shouting "crowded! in a firehouse theater?
I shout "Firehouse !" in a theatre crowded
One of my favorite cases. Look at Justice Scalia and his vote. He clearly hated that the flag was burned. He probably wanted the flag burner to go to jail. But he voted for liberty and the right to express yourself as a citizen. This is one of the cases that transcends bias, political leaning or personal wants. Unfortunately these cases are not the common occurrence and mostly conservatives vote for conservative laws even if they restrict liberty. And the same is the case for left leaning judges.
one of the best
As a Texan I can confirm that this only happens in Texas
And Florida
His conviction was unconstitutional but what he did was illegal. Stealing that flag and destroying it is analogous to stealing stuff off your own garden and destroying it. Both of which, can easily get you convicted.
how can you steal stuff, if you already own it? I think you didn't think your analogy through.
Yes citizens pay taxes, but no one citizen owns government privately.
As others have pointed out, Johnson did not steal the flag, someone else did and gave it to him.
Ah I remember the Futurama episode on this subject.
That was such a good series
I’ve honestly found this topic to be the definitive test to see who is and who isn’t actually pro the 1A.
Good way to look at it.
This the decor I’ve test to see which right wingers aren’t truly in favour of freedom of speech and Brandenburg is the test to see which left wingers aren’t truly in favour of freedom of speech.
@@The_Libationist as a leftist, I agree that strong and heated rhetoric should be protected, even if the speech is vile, if there is no evidence that the intent was to incite violence.
You forgot to point out that Scalia was with the majority on thsi case. That was considered quite unusual but consistent with his theories
5-4 was the split. Is burning a flag really that hard to understand as free speech? Is this just my mind taking freedom for granted but that seems like a rather obvious expression of speech. Sure it isn't verbal but...5-4. This isn't really a Roe v. Wade level complicated issue.
Honestly, I was just as surprised when I first learned of how close this case was. That said, we are an extremely nationalistic country, and the more nationalistic a country is, the more sacred the flag tends to become.
I know right? 4 of those judges weren't really concerned about the Constitution when it didn't work in their favor. Kind of like liberals and conservatives in politics huh?
It shows us that strict constructionists aren't always Conservative, and loose constructionists aren't always liberal.
It's more about political biases and afflictions that protecting the constitution to many justices.
Maybe because relentless degeneracy and being absolute scumbag of a human doesn't fall under freedom of speech idiot. If you abuse a right you don't deserve it
@@magtinfal7908 Shut up idiot.
I think it's crazy that anyone would think it's ok to imprison someone for burning a flag for any longer than they could be imprisoned for burning any other object. Like, if you made a massive pure out of burning flags, and the fire got out of control, and you didn't start it on your property, and you accidentally burned down someone else's house as a result, then I would get it. However, if all you've done is burnt a single flag, I don't see why that should be considered any different than burning a newspaper, or a book, or a cross, or a Bible, or a qu'ran, or any other seemingly important object.
I highly suggest listening to the oral arguments on Oyez. It’s both fascinating and hilarious at times, especially Scalia.
Opinion: Well thought out legal arguments with respect to the Constitution and fundamental rights.
Dissent: But a lot of people REALLY REALLY like the flag though!
I can genuinely see both sides of this. The thing is though, Americans only have freedom of speech because they live in the United States of America, which is what the Flag represents. I won't say if it should be banned or not, but anyone who burns the flag that represents their right to freedom of speech among many other things in the first place is both an idiot and a phenomenally spoiled, ungrateful scum of the Earth.
yeah
Conservatives - "hate speech IS free speech"
Also conservatives - "burning the American flag is hateful and should be banned".
America has a terrorist government so it’s not really hateful. Quite the opposite actually
Hate speech does not count as free speech. Conservatives fundamentally fail to understand this.
If you are in favour of free speech only when you agree (or at least, does not disagree too much) with the content of the speech, then you are NOT in favour of free speech
I'm kinda surprised that there was no mention of destruction of government or private property. As he took it off of a government building. If the flag was his property, would it have gone this far?
The fact that Scalia voted for Johnson really shows how, even tho clearly a conservative, he isn’t as black and white as some people may assume
He was usually a swing vote on free speech and criminal rights cases. His methodology was coherent and airtight, and not ideological like a lot of court watchers made him out to be.
I mean if the court convicted him I feel like his point would've been proven right.
As someone who loves America and the flag, and is very patriotic, you should be able to burn one. The reason why I love America so much is because it is so free, allowing all opinions to be heard, and it should stay that way. The government should never limit any opinions no matter how stupid.
I think the real crime he comitted was vandalism, in my opinion.
How is it your for freedom,when most everyone is not ? Thank God for voices like yours - neal a.
I can genuinely see both sides of this. The thing is though, Americans only have freedom of speech because they live in the United States of America, which is what the Flag represents. I won't say if it should be banned or not, but anyone who burns the flag that represents their right to freedom of speech among many other things in the first place is both an idiot and scum of the Earth.
Plus, burning the flag can have many meanings. Sure, it could be considered a protest against something American, but it can also symbolize the burning passion many feel for this country.
Plus, I know thins is silly, but could you imagine how badass someone going into battle in a movie with a burning flag?
"Free" LMAO!
Funny how a state that loves to flaunt its freedom really doesn’t care to ever actually give and allow those freedoms
3:51 So this law would actually have out lawed flying the flag on trucks, as that is a clear desecration
I have sold thousands of rolls of toilet paper with the American flag printed on them.
YOU BETTER SLEEP WITH BOTH EYES OPEN TONIGHT
I'd have one of those toilet rolls
Where’s does one get such toilet paper? 😅
@@joshuavildor2824 google "American flag toilet paper" you will find many online shops and Ebay that sell them.
ya, the country is shit, so imma treat it like it
Thank you Mr. Beats! You make amazing videos and you should be more popular! Every time I want to learn about something about social studies I go to you.
Thanks for the kind words. It helps to keep me going. :)
No. Thank you!
Fun fact: the US military is the biggest burner of American flags. According to the US Flag Code: "The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning."
Hence, the practice of flag burning can be viewed as entirely patriotic--when the flag is dishonored (perhaps by the action of a president), it is the citizen's duty to burn it.
That's in a different context though
@@major_kukri2430It could very well be argued that someone might see the flag itself as in good condition but the symbol as tarnished enough to warrant burning, this is ofc info ring the obvious free speech of burning the flag
@enider That's is, once again, a different context.
@@enider actually, you just brought up the context of protesting. Which is what the video is about. So kinda redundant on your end.
@@major_kukri2430protesting is fine and dandy but stealing flags and burning them is not protesting, it is theft
Scalia & Rehnquist were on different sides on this one . . . interesting.
In times before the American War for Independence people burned mock representations of King George III. People didn’t like their king and they expressed themselves that way. Some may have views it as far from offensive but it showed what would become as the first amendment.
pretty sure you will get arrested for burning king george III
This case still upsets me to this day, not because of the outcome, for which I 100% agree, but the asinine dissent. The dissent sounds like they either don't actually care about the spirit of the law or were afraid of their legacy being perceived as "the one who said flag burning was okay." I think it's a little bit of column A and B.
sounds a bit like texas had a blasphemy style law
Pretty much!
5 years later and I'm thinking "had" is a little over-optimistic
Thanks for the shout out! ^_^
Heck yeah. Thanks for the support!
Great episode by the way :)
While I despise flag burning, everyone must have the right to free speech no matter how offensive it is
D Brick tbh my opinions have changed on this issue, I don’t get personally offended if people burn the flag anymore they can do whatever they want and I’m okay with that. Also what’s a “constant toady”?
@@viccytor5633 but what about the veterans who died to save our fat asses. Despising the American flag is a slap in the face who gave their life to save it
@@Mike-fu3xd It's a piece of fabric. And who cares if it "disrespects" veterans? That's a matter of opinion. Asides, nobody has a legal obligation to respect veterans. So, while burning the flag might be considered morally wrong (depending on who you ask), it's legally/constitutionally protected.
@RejectMonkenityreturntoFESH They do. In case you didn't know, saying the n word is protected speech, and it's still protected speech no matter who you say it to.
@@trangvophuong6919 No, it's not! Bad language, at well as slander/libel and certain levels of hate speech, are among the *exceptions* that are *not* protected as free speech!
It's ridiculous Americans treat their flag like a God and get pissed off when people burn it.
As an Englishman, I find it amazing that a bit of red, white and blue bunting attracts so much strong feeling. The only official regulation in the UK regarding the Union Jack is a Royal Navy regulation that says old flags mustn't be cut up for cleaning rags.
Because unlike you Brits us Americans actually have pride in our country
this video was very informational, thank you
If flag burning becomes illegal I will burn the flag.
Tough guy
There are veterans who fought to save your soy boy lookin fat ass
Nice video. Very Interesting. You got my sub:)
Thanks so much! :D
Rather than burn an Amercan flag, I chose to burn a Confederate flag. The Union forever!!!
your still my enemy tho
We are going to war
Ok yankee
I'm firmly in support of this. Speech shouldn't be judged based on whether it¡s offensive or not
0:14 Dallas is shown West of it's actual point. It should be moved a few cm/in east.
I'm Native American my people were massacred by that flag!
I remember before this happened a father son duo jumped into Wrigley Field to burn an American flag. Rick Monday, a Cubs or Dodgers outfielder rescued the flag to the delight of the crowd.
The "dirty diapers" part made me laugh LMAO
Probably John Paul Stevens’ worst decision on the court
How so?
JPS was an unapologetic activist. His entire jurisprudence is bad decision-making.
@@organizedchaos4559 Freedom of speech
Wait, Scalia sided with Johnson? that kind of breaks me as I am on the same side as Scalia in that regard yet disagree with the man politically.
Scalia was a scholar who was logically consistent. What is illogical and inconsistent is the way we line up on politically opposing sides and sometimes, the the battle-lines make no sense. Protecting free speech should be a conservative value, and for Scalia it was. It's the 'other' conservatives who are inconsistent.
Read Scalia's personal opinion on it. He kept emotion out of his decision
@@charlesdoyle3630 I have since did that, and while he and I may differ on our politics he voiced his opinion on the issue well and I am partially glad we could see eye to eye on the issue.
Somehow I missed this video. I’m surprised to see Scalia voting for the majority on this one. I bet if Thomas were on the court during this time, he would have voted the other way.
I'm also curious if Buck v. Bell might come up in this series.
Oh wow, I completely forgot about that case. That would be a great one to cover.
Yeah it is one of those stealth cases that most peoole never hear about. The only reason I knew of it was because of a public lecture from a lawyer. It is really sad it doesn't get talked about like it should because it is a big case on personal autonomy and if the state has the ability to control your body for societal benifit regardless of what side of the debate you are on.
I know, right? Its implications will be of such great magnitude in the future.
Could he not have been charged with theft, destruction of private property, arson, and endangering the public?
No, he couldn’t have
IMO people's feelings for the flag verge on idolatry.
Sometimes, I think certain people care more about the US Flag than the US Constitution, almost worshipping it in a weird way.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag..."
It's way worse than that. Some don't even call out immoral actions of the US government, as if no wrong can be committed by it. Supporters of BOTH major parties are guilty of this.
@@thunderbird1921 That's very true, but they don't want us to think about that..
They're always supposed to have opposing views, no matter what..
It's a piece of fucking cloth.. an inanimate object.. for fucks sake.
But muh flag.
Would Rehnquist note also apply in case of (acknowledged) religious symbols ? Since they are "regarded by millions and millions of Americans with a mystical reverence" ?
We can thank movements like those for Reagan and Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty, and Bush and Gorbachev signing the START I Treaty.
I look at this case in the same way I look at Brandenburg V Ohio. We may not agree with the burning of certain objects but the right to freely express yourself shouldn’t be limited. If the court fully sided with Texas then they would’ve had to overturn Brandenburg v Ohio
Exactly, nobody should silence speak, or we will get *revengence*
I wrote an AP Government essay on this case.
Hey Mr Beat, could you do a video on Smith v Allwright pls
Please do Lawrence v Texas
will you do United States v. The Amistad
I remember this video was shown in my civics class in high school.
These guys making exceptions for the flag don't really understand free speech. Free speech is absolute
No, it's not. There are already certain exceptions like bad language, hate speech, and slander/libel. The real question is if burning the Flag is considered to exceed those limits.
@@Compucles Freedom of speech only applies in terms of referring to the government not individuals or groups. The reason why hate speech is illegal is because it refers to an individual or a group not associated with the government. And slender is not technically illegal but you can be sued for spreading misinformation about an individual or group.
@@Compucles Bad language and hate speech are protected under the first amendment.
@@yin5589 Hate speech is protected under 1A. It's only illegal when it calls for direct acts of violence etc.
Coming back to this is highly unironic.
Reminds me of John Green
Mr Beat can you do House of Repsatives for countys
Sorry for bad spelling
Why are people in charge of the law contradicting the us flag code?
“If you want a symbolic gesture, don't burn the flag; wash it.”
Norman Thomas
what was johnson specifically protesting though? which of reagan's policies?
Alyssa G He was a communist and Pres. Reagan was a conservative, small gov supporter. It could've been foreign policy or really anything else. Reagan's views were very far away from the extreme left wing. The WWIII comment seems to suggest that it was against Reagan's aggressive strategy against the USSR and Reagan's hatred of communism
@@HistoryNerd808 so the guy was a traitor
@@rumblebird9888 Naw he was an American who had a different viewpoint than Reaganites. Doesn't make him a "traitor".
There should still be an option left open for him to be punished for theft. If you want to burn a flag, then you need to buy it.
Chief Justice: William Rheinquist
President During this time: George H. W. Bush
Argued March 21, 1989
Decided June 21, 1989
Case Duration: 92 days
Decision: 5-4 in favor of Johnson (Marshall, Brennan Jr., Blackmun, Kennedy, Scalia. Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, White for Texas)
I actually have multiple opinions on this one.
If you're gonna burn the flag, you should expect that people'll bully you.
However, no government should outlaw any sort of flag burning when the person burning the flag, owns that *specific* flag. Think about it as, you buy a flag, bring it to some kind of protest, and then set it a blaze. Very provocative, but the flag was your property.
Lastly, You should NOT steal a flag to burn it in protest, not from the government, nor any individual. That's theft, destruction of property, and/or vandalism. The first amendment doesn't apply to you stealing a flag from someone or somewhere and burning it in the street in front of the flag owner.
Does that mean destroying a government property is protected under the first amendment also?
No.
Just curious, it is not illegal to have someone's picture made to be a shooting object right?
No, it's just really disturbing.
Why would you do that?
All I can say is sometimes America lets me down, but other times I could not be more proud. A country that protects even those who call for its end is one to believe in.
When the Supreme court gets it right
The thing I've said since the Nineties is _Don't fry it don't fly it don't own it don't worry about it._ Seems to work okay. 🙂
My opinion on flag burning can be summed up by the words of Simon Phoenix "you can't take away peoples rights to be assholes"
If the dissenting argument was that the flag held special reverence to people and therefore should have higher protections, wouldn’t religious text, such as the Quran’s desecrated in front of prisoners by US military personnel, also fit that?
Freedom of speech means I have a right to offend you
It's really ironic that someone who would call for an end to the bill of rights ended up being saved from Prison time by that exact bill of rights.
Don't think he called for the end of the bill of rights. Weird how you think anyone anti-american also hates freedom, as if the two things are connected at all.
@@Ry_TSG I didn't say he was anti bill of rights because he was anti USA, the US has done some majorly screwed up things and it's absolutely right to protest it. I said he was anti bill of rights because of his specific political ideology. The system of government he is advocating for wouldn't include the same rights as the bill of rights does.
@@4u1004me Why not? Communism isn't just when "the government does stuff", you know. The intention of communism is to have everything, including companies, be democratically run by its constituents. Every "communist" country in history has been the epitome of the problem communism was intended to solve (elite class running society). Of course, communism wouldn't exactly work in the real world even if it wasn't made into a dictatorship, but to say that it's anti-bill of rights is just assuming things.
@@Ry_TSG You can't have freedom of speech in a communist country because then anti revolutionary thoughts would be rampant and challenge the state. I know of the idealized version of communism that communists naively believe is possible, but every single time communism has been tried it ended up in brutal dictatorships with millions dead from famines and purges. It's not just me assuming shit, it's a historical observation. You can have the best intentions, but it can still go to shit, and communism always does.
@@4u1004me A “communist” dictatorship isn’t really communist if it goes against the point of communism though. Sure, it’s centrally planned, a dictatorship isn’t the system communism is supposed to use. It’s like saying you can have democratically elected monarchy; its directly contradictory.
Hey there’s a guy burning the Puerto Rican flag!
Who, who is burning the flag?!
Do the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe
The votes in that decision are really interesting. We have 3 liberals and 2 conservatives, versus 2 conservatives and 2 liberals.
It's ironic that the Texas law is phrased in exactly the kind of way in which many laws protecting religious scriptures are written. Yet, I'm quite confident that if someone had tried to sue someone for burning a Quran, Texas would have laughed them out of the room claiming it's protected under free speech
I thought John Paul Stevens was a staunch 1st amendment defender?
Can you do Snyder v. Phelps
I live in Colorado
Wow, I didn't know the Supreme Court decision was so close.. 5 to 4... If just one justice had gone the other way, it would be illegal to burn the flag. Although I would never burn our flag, I believe it is extremely important that we have the right to do so. If we didn't, we wouldn't be living under a true democracy.
Though I fully "support" flag burning as a freedom of expression, the stealing of private property and the absolute degeneracy displayed outside the convention (spray painting walls and littering the area with filth) should've been called into question more than "is flag burning ok."
Well, I say they can ban burning a public flag. But it shouldn’t be illegal to burn a flag if it’s store bought.
"government can ban speech because it hurts people's fee-fees" is one of those dumb things. Can "bad" speech get social pushback? Absolutely. Not only can it but it should. But that is different from government sanction against that speech.
It actually surprises me that O'Connor dissented on this case.
I live in Texas
+Luke Detering It's an awesome state
Mr. Beat so is kansas
Mr. Beat you got that right
Mr. Beat Texas is a stupid State
Sucks to be you then
Does this mean I can publicly burn ANY flag? A state flag? A flag of a group I disagree with? Another country's flag?
Yes because that's freedom of speech.
You'll find that most people from most other countries don't really care. We're not raised from birth to worship the national flag in my country. As you long you bought that flag yourself, then you're burning your own stuff.
@@Cupit29 Hardly true, the U.S is actually one of the few nations to formally legalize flag desecration. Even western countries like Portugal, France and Germany prohibit burning the national flag under penalty of law.
@@actanonverba3041because those countries aren’t free lmfao. If they have hate speech laws wtf makes you think they would allow flag burning. Pussy nations
Smh we aren’t allow to shoot and ask questions later when it comes to disrespecting the flag 😅😕
it's called free speech. It's hilarious watching Americans panic in the face of real freedom.
This is some 1984 ass shit. In more ways than one