Because they are Jews

1
(No Transcript)
2
Because they are Jews
3
Because they are Black
4
Because they are unMuslim
5
Because they are gays
6
????????
7
????????
8
???????
9
???????
10
Because of intolerance

• How do we treat others?
• How do we treat ourselves?
• For fear, I repeat it, is at the bottom of all
  intolerance.
• Van Loon Tolerance

11
(No Transcript)
12
Constitutional Review

• Review of what?
• Legislation by parliament (statute)
• Delegated legislation by administration
• Regulations, by-laws, orders with general
  application by authorities
• By who?
• Court of Law (high court, constitutional court)

13
The Law

• Constitution
• Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
  of speech.
• Legislation under review
• Penal Act it is a crime to desecrate a
  venerated object, such as national flag, in
  public

14
Step One

• Interpretation of constitution
• Freedom
• speech
• abridge

15
Step Two

• Does the law under review
• Abridge the freedom of speech?
• if yes
• What are the reasons? (government interests)

16
Step Three

• Constitutional rights

• Government interests

• Freedom of speech

• Peace and order
• Protection of symbol

Balance of the conflicting interests Which are
more important?
17
Texas v Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
18
material facts

• In 1984, Johnson participated in a political
  demonstration in Dallas to protest the policies
  of the Reagans administration.
• A protestor took an American flag from a flagpole
  outside a corporate building and gave it to
  Johnson.

19
1. Full Citation

• Texas v Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
• Texas v Johnson names of the parties involved
• U.S. Name of the law report
• 491 volume number of the law report
• 397 the starting page
• 1989 the year in which the case was decided by
  the court

20
2. material facts

• Political demonstration
• 100 participants
• Johnson set flag on fire
• Slogan chanted
• No disturbance
• Several people were seriously offended
• Johnson alone was arrested.

Dallas City Hall
21
3. procedural history

• Johnson was charged with the desecration of
  venerated object under Texas Penal Code. He was
  convicted after a trial and sentence to one year
  in prison
• He appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth
  District of Texas affirmed Johnsons conviction.

22
3. procedural history

• He appealed again. Texas Court of Criminal
  Appeals reversed his conviction for the reason
  that the punishment is inconsistent with the
  first Amendment.
• The State appealed to the Supreme Court.

23
4. issue to be decided

• The issue to be decided is, whether a states law
  is constitutional if the law criminally punish
  someone for publicly burning a national / federal
  flag as a means of political protest.

24
5. The relevant Law

• The First Amendment of US Constitution
• Congress shall not make law abridging the
  freedom of speech.

25
5. Relevant Law case Law

• Street v New York
• New York Penal Law, which makes it a crime
  publicly to mutilate or publicly to defy or
  cast contempt upon any American flag either by
  words or by act."
• Sydney Street We don't need no damn flag. "If
  they let that happen to Meredith, we don't need
  an American flag.
• Held by words part is unconstitutional, but
  silent on by act part.

James Meredith Civil rights leader First black
student in UM Shot in march against fear but
survived.
26
5. Relevant Law case Law

• West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette
• Flag salute in school
• Jehovah's Witness
• Refuse to do so
• expelled
• held that no one shall be enforced to show
  respect to the national flag.

27
Conduct Speech?

• If Conduct communicative protected by 1st
  Amendment
• A conduct is communicative if
• Intent to convey a message to others and
• message would be understood by those who viewed
  it
• Tinkers case (black armbands) and
• Brown v Louisiana (sit-in)
• Flag burning is communicative b/c

28
Government Interests

• 1) Preservation of Peace
• No disturbance of peace occurred
• Likelihood to disturb the peace
• Offensive to others, not enough
• Intend to incite imminent violent action
  Brandenburg
• Fighting words Chaplinsky

29
Government Interests

• 2) Preserve flag as a symbol of nationhood and
  national unity.
• Burning flag may lead people believe
• Flag not stand for nationhood
• National unity do not exist at all.

30
Symbol

• Burning a flag itself is not a crime
• Crime or not depends on message sent by
  flag-burning
• Offensive to others (what is desecration?)
• Who decide flag symbolize just one thing, not
  another?
• How to preserve flag as a symbol

31
Right way to use a symbol?

• If ban flag burning,
• copy of constitution,
• presidential seal
• Picture of president

32
decision

• The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal
  Appeals is affirmed. conviction shall be set
  aside

33
ratio decidendi

• Any law which criminally punishes a person, who
  burns a national flag as political expression, is
  inconsistent with the First Amendment if his/her
  conduct does not threaten to disturb the peace.

34
Dissenting Opinions

• Flag is symbol of all beautiful ideas, not just
  nationhood
• Banning flag-burning just little burden on
  freedom of expression, not abridgement.
• Prohibition of flag-burning has nothing to do
  with disagreeable idea, but disagreeable
  conduct
• Depends on others take offence
• Spray on Lincoln Memorial