Is Flag Burning Protected Speech?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

December 1, 2016 6 min read

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion." — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

Is flag burning protected speech? This old issue returned front and center earlier this week after President-Elect Donald Trump tweeted that he found it so reprehensible, it should be criminal. He even suggested a punishment — loss of citizenship or one year in jail. Is the president-elect correct? Can the government punish acts that accompany the expression of opinions because the government, or the public generally, hates or fears the opinions?

Here is the backstory.

Last weekend, in a series of continued emotional responses to the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, and prodded by the death of Fidel Castro — the long-time, brutal, profoundly anti-American dictator of Cuba — students on a few American college campuses publicly burned American flags. These acts regenerated the generation-old debate about the lawfulness of this practice, with the president-elect decidedly on the side of those who condemn it.

For the sake of this analysis, like the U.S. Supreme Court, which has addressed this twice in the past 17 years, I am addressing whether you can burn your own American flag. The short answer is: Yes. You can burn your flag and I can burn mine, so long as public safety is not impaired by the fires. But you cannot burn my flag against my will, nor can you burn a flag owned by the government.

Before the Supreme Court ruled that burning your own flag in public is lawful, federal law and numerous state laws had made it criminal to do so. In analyzing those laws before it declared them to be unconstitutional, the Court looked at the original public understanding of those laws and concluded that they were intended not as fire safety regulations — the same statutes permitted other public fires — but rather as prophylactics intended to coerce reverence for the American flag by criminalizing the burning of privately owned pieces of cloth that were recognizable as American flags.

That is where the former statutes ran into trouble. Had they banned all public fires in given locations, for public safety sake, they probably would have withstood a constitutional challenge. But since these statutes were intended to suppress the ideas manifested by the public flag burning, by making the public expression of those ideas criminal, the statutes ran afoul of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from enacting laws infringing upon the freedom of speech, has consistently been interpreted in the modern era so as to insulate the public manifestation of political ideas from any government interference, whether the manifestation is by word or deed or both. This protection applies even to ideas that are hateful, offensive, unorthodox and outright un-American. Not a few judges and constitutional scholars have argued that the First Amendment was written for the very purpose of protecting the expression of hateful ideas, as loveable or popular ideas need no protection.

The Amendment was also written for two additional purposes. One was, as Justice Jackson wrote as quoted above, to keep the government out of the business of passing judgment on ideas and deciding what we may read, speak about or otherwise express in public. The corollary to this is that individuals should decide for themselves what ideas to embrace or reject, free from government interference.

In the colonial era, the Founding Fathers had endured a British system of law enforcement that punished ideas that the King thought dangerous. As much as we revere the Declaration of Independence for its elevation of personal liberty over governmental orthodoxy, we are free today to reject those ideas. The Declaration and its values were surely rejected by King George III, who would have hanged its author, Thomas Jefferson, and its signers had they lost the American Revolutionary War. Thank God they won.

Justice Jackson also warned that a government strong enough to suppress ideas that it hates or fears was powerful enough to suppress debate that inconveniences it, and that suppression would destroy the purposes of the First Amendment. The Jacksonian warning is directly related to the Amendment's remaining understood purpose — to encourage and protect open, wide, robust debate about any aspect of government.

All these values were addressed by the Supreme Court in 1989 and again in 1990 when it laid to rest the flag burning controversies by invalidating all statutes aimed at suppressing opinions.

Even though he personally condemned flag burning, the late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority in both cases and actively defended both decisions. At a public forum sponsored by Brooklyn Law School in 2015, I asked him how he would re-write the flag burning laws, if he could do so. He jumped at the opportunity to say that if he were the king, flag burners would go to jail. Yet, he hastened to remind his audience that he was not the king, that in America we don't have a king, that there is no political orthodoxy here, and that the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, leaves freedom of expression to individual choices, not government mandates.

The American flag is revered because it is a universally recognizable symbol of the human sacrifice of some for the human freedom of many. Justice Scalia recognized that flag burning is deeply offensive to many people — this writer among them — yet he, like Justice Jackson before him, knew that banning it dilutes the very freedoms that make the flag worth revering.

Like it? Share it!

  • 2

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
About Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
Read More | RSS | Subscribe | Contact

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE...


UP NEXT:

What if the Government Is Not Worth Thanking?

What if the Government Is Not Worth Thanking?

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
What if on Thanksgiving Day there is more to be fearful about than there is to be thankful for? What if our political season from hell is not over but merely transformed? What if the election season through which we all just suffered is a portent of things to come? What if the election was decided not on issues but on emotions? What if most people who voted for president chose the candidate they hated less? What if people talked more about videotapes, emails, private behavior and public deception than they did about issues that arise under the Constitution? What if the videotapes and the emails aroused feelings of disgust that motivated millions of voters to make choices? What if those emotional choices led them to Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton? What if, on the issues that arise under the Constitution, Clinton and Trump have a common belief at their core — that government should expand to address whatever needs the politicians who run it can identify? What if neither Clinton nor Trump expressed any mistrust of government? What if, instead, they showed a willingness to embrace it? What if there was little or no talk during the campaign of personal liberty in a free society? What if there was little or no talk during the campaign about how the federal government should stay within the confines of the Constitution? What if there was no talk at all by either candidate during the campaign of the Constitution itself and the values that underlie it and its unambiguous recognition of natural rights? What if the public injection of the FBI into the political process during the height of the presidential campaign was without precedent or legal justification? What if it was expressly prohibited by long-standing federal practice? What if the Department of Justice was determined to exonerate Clinton no matter what evidence of criminal activity on her part was discovered by the FBI? What if the FBI nonsense about Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop was just that — nonsense intended to ensure a Clinton electoral defeat in return for her legal exoneration? What if that is a trade-off that the FBI has no business offering and no lawful right to make? What if the whole purpose of the Constitution was to establish the federal government and, at the same time, to limit it? What if the Constitution affirmatively states that the powers the states do not delegate away to the federal government are retained by them? What if that view is alien to President-elect Trump? What if he believes that the federal government can right any wrong, regulate any behavior and tax any event, no matter what the Constitution says? What if candidate Trump called Obamacare the worst political experiment and assault on health care in American history? What if the core of Obamacare is the individual mandate (which forces all Americans to have health insurance), the pre-existing conditions mandate (which forces insurance carriers to insure the uninsurable, against all free market principles) and the child coverage mandate (which forces insurance carriers to allow for the insuring of the children of insured parents until the children reach age 26)? What if those three mandates have contributed to the increased cost of health insurance and the decreased availability of the services of medical professionals? What if President-elect Trump now supports those three mandates, against which he railed aggressively and vociferously when he was a candidate? What if he supports President Barack Obama's claimed right to use drones to kill Americans who have not been charged or convicted of any crime when they are in foreign countries? What if Trump believes he can legally torture Americans, not as punishment for the commission of a crime but to extract information from them? What if he believes he can kill the innocent spouses and children of those foreigners who are harming American interests? What if torture for any purpose and knowingly targeting innocents for death are war crimes and the president is not immune from being prosecuted for them? What if Trump, like Obama before him, believes he can lock people up without charges or a trial or access to the courts? What if on Thanksgiving, instead of thanking, we engage in thinking — about human freedom, limited government and government fidelity to the Constitution that created it? What if, while being thankful for life and liberty, we think about ways to preserve them? What if we recognize that when our government breaks its own laws, it assaults the fabric of our republic? What if we are thankful for the recognition of that? What if on Thanksgiving we re-evaluate the relationship of the individual to the state? What if we begin by demanding that the government work for us and not the other way around? What if instead of just accepting the new government, we try to limit it? What if we advance the idea that the individual has an immortal soul and the government is a temporary organization based on a monopoly of force? What if we can cause the government to recognize that because our souls are immortal, there are vast areas of human behavior in which we do not need a government permission slip in order to make personal choices? What if we call these choices in these areas natural rights? What if the best government is the one that taxes, spends and regulates the least? What if the best government recognizes our natural rights? What if the best government leaves us alone? What if that would be something to be thankful for? Keep reading