Week 3 Reflection

Prompt 2

In the FIRE article, Robert Corn-Revere states that Trump’s proposal to ban flag burning “is nothing new, and it would not reduce dissent” (FIRE, 2024). Such claims can be backed up with the Supreme Court’s rulings in Texas v. Johnson (1989) and United States v. Eichman (1990), which both argued that the First Amendment protects attempts to censor flag desecration. In Johnson, the Court stated that the government has no power to sanction the expression of ideas even when the ideas expressed are offensive or distasteful, thus dissension in whatever form is protected. Corn-Revere's argument about ineffectiveness also stands: to criminalize dissenting behavior does not obliterate the dissent; it is said to aggravate it and create more conflict, which greatly empowers the dissenters. Thus, I do not see Trump’s proposal as new, but rather, I see it as a reiteration of the old disputes that the Court has already resolved. I do not deny that the political environment nowadays may give flag burning more symbolic significance, but the constitutional matters still do not differ from those existing in 1989.

Prompt 3

My attention was grabbed by one particular part of Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Texas vs. Johnson: “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea and simply because the idea is, in some circles, viewed as offensive, or disagreeable” (491 U.S. 397, 414, 1989)). I find this argument compelling as it captures the quintessential essence of the meaning of free speech. I find it compelling because it touches the heart of the issue of majority opinion and minority dissent and inverts the argument in defense of free speech in a democratic society. I find it interesting that, in Brennan’s opinion, it is the constitutional protection that is the most troubling in the case of the speech that is the most offensive, because that is the case where the government will most likely attempt to suppress it. That’s the case that broadened and deepened my understanding of the First Amendment. It clarified that it is not there to protect the popular prevailing opinion. Instead, it stands to protect the very sentiments that are repressed, problematic, or cause discomfort to the prevailing order.