1.) What do you think is meant by "symbolic speech"? What are some other examples?

Symbolic speech is the act of voicing ones views and opinions through their actions or through symbols. I think it can be very similar to speech, although its meaning may not always be as clear cut when compared to the written or spoken word. Other examples could include wearing an armband to school or giving someone the finger. 2.) How should the Supreme Court of the United States decide this case? Why? While the Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of Johnson, I feel that they should have decided this case in favor of the state of Texas since his actions were so overtly antipatriotic and completely destroyed an almost sacred object in the presence of many others. This ruling may have been seen as a breach of rights, but I feel as though some acts should be limited. 3.) According to this opinion, why does the First Amendment protect the flag burning in which Johnson engaged? The burning of the flag is still protected under the First Amendment, according to the opinion, since it conveys a strong enough message and is imbued with enough elements of communication. The opinion states that once this freedom is limited, then others could be as well. A vicious cycle of limited expression under the First Amendment could follow, leading to a much more rigid and authoritarian government. 4.) How would prohibiting flag burning prevent "breaches of the peace?" Did the Court accept the State's argument to this effect? If flag burning was prohibited, breaches of peace would be less likely because the public would not be pulled to such an extraordinary spectacle such as the burning of the flag and the peace of society would be maintained. While charges of breaching the peace were brought against Johnson, the Supreme Court rejected this argument since Johnsons conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace. 5.) According to the Court, Texas asserted an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity. How does the Court respond to this assertion? The Supreme Court agrees that the flag should continue to represent the strong ideals of our nation as it has in the past, but they state that the desire to preserve the flag in such a way should not result in criminal charges against Johnson for his expression. 6.) Why does the Court say that the flag's position as a symbol will be strengthened, not weakened, by their decision in this case? The Court believes that the flags symbolic position will be strengthened because through their decision that highlights the importance of freedom of expression and speech, ideals that are at the bedrock of American society, the flag will be looked at as an even stronger representation of the broad liberties which are granted to citizens of the USA. 7.) How does the Court recommend that supporters of the flag respond to those who desecrate it? The Court recommends that supporters wave their own flags, salute to a burning flag, and even bury the charred remains of a flag- all in an effort to undermine the message that another is trying to convey.

8.) Chief Justice Rehnquist agrees with the majority that expression may not be punished because of the negative reaction of people who observe that expression. What does he say is the real justification for anti-flag burning laws and why Johnson was punished? Rehnquist says that the real reason why Johnson was punished is that his use of that particular symbol in such an offensive way. Johnson could have voiced his dissatisfaction with the government in many other more articulate ways but he chose an overtly offensive act instead- burning the flag. 9.) In Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion, how was the unique status that the flag enjoys established? He believes that the unique status was established because the flag has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. Since it universally represents the most deep-rooted philosophies in our nation, the flag has gained such a status through an almost mystical reverence. 10.) What point is Chief Justice Rehnquist trying to make about flag burning when he mentions that the government may send young men into battle to die for the flag, but may not prohibit the public burning of the flag? Do you agree or disagree with this argument? Explain. He is saying that there is little difference between the sanctity of the flag being defended overseas or domestically. Soldiers can die fighting over the liberties that the flag represents and yet the flag can be so criminally abused right within our borders. I disagree with this argument only on the basis that the burning of the flag is not necessarily negating the freedoms that those soldiers have fought so hard to protect, it is, in a way, enhancing it. As Chief Justice Rehnquist stated, by granting such great freedom of speech to citizens of the US, the ideals of the flag are strengthened.