America
has protective laws when it comes to freedom of speech. Free speech is defined under, “Amendment I”. These liberties have mass support from
Americans however, these liberties may at times conflict with the goals and
values of society which is why the authors of, “American Government,” published
by Oxford University Press often, “favor curtailing liberty in the name of
national security or domestic peace[1].” Is this the right perspective on the
matter? In a thorough analysis of this
issue, the statements in the First Amendment must be deciphered. Further, the origin of the state needs to be
taken into account and lastly, the concept of political crime must be explored. With these in mind, it becomes clear that the
subduing of free speech actions such as flag burning will result in a
repressive society wherein people will be in a state of powerlessness which
then prevents the progression of a free and independent democracy.
An American legal case, United States v. Eichman, decided on June 1990, the American judiciaries ruled that
burning the flag is considered a form of free speech[2]. Some
may argue that a line must be drawn. Through this boundary, people can then
articulate what is not /acceptable. In
September 1789, Congress “proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution, and
within two years ratified them. These
ten amendments, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights, constitute a
list of specific limits on the power of the national government[3]”. The first amendment was included to promote
freedom of speech in America. This
includes activities which in some states could be considered terrorism such as flag
burning. The First Amendment states that
the, “state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech; or
of the press; or the right of people to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances[4]”. Action such as flag burning represents grievances
against the government in power. It is a
radical expression of anger against the establishment. However, it is a form of free speech which
serves to promote the liberties under the Bill of Rights as it was designed in
such a way that the government does not encroach on the rights of the people
via repressive means. This is because
what is acceptable or not acceptable for the government to do is well stated in
the constitution. It prevents the American
government from incrementally removing the rights of free independent Americans. The line certainly has been drawn in America
to prevent an overbearing government.
Countries became states when the Treaty of Westphalia was
enacted on 1648 which provided a framework whereby states would operate. Each state was to be located in a geographic
location, have a government, sovereignty and authority over a population. Is it possible that governments can terrorize
their own population? Yes. “Political crime, such as a leader's need to eliminate his or her opponents,
although couched on political terms … including
the need to preserve power that allows for satisfaction of plain personal greed
[and etc.][5]” This is currently happening in China and Russia. The point of the Constitution is to prevent
what has transpired in those nations from occurring in the USA. It becomes evident then, the policy makers of
America involved in the making of the Constitution were well aware of this
threat and sought to protect the American citizen from this type of
terror. So when the question of flag
burning comes to mind, is it a form of terror?
Or is it a form of free speech?
The logical answer through this analysis therefore suggest that the
First Amendment serves to prevent the American government from incrementally encroaching
on the rights of American citizens. It
serves to prevent government state crime.
[1] Gitelson
et al., “American Government,” Oxford University Press (2018) page 114
[2] Rothman,
L., “This is why its Legal to Burn the American Flag,” Time (2011). Retrieved from: https://time.com/3907444/flag-supreme-court-history/#:~:text=In%20United%20States%20v.%20Eichman%2C%20which%20was%20decided,years%20that%20followed%2C%20but%20they%20never%20went%20anywhere.
[3] Gitelson
et al., “American Government,” Oxford University Press (2018) page 115
[4] Gitelson
et al., “American Government,” Oxford University Press (2018) page 481
[5] Arboleda-Florez,
J.E., Criminology: Psychopathological
Aspects,” International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences “Science
Direct (2001). Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/political-crime
No comments:
Post a Comment