Introduction
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, in particular, has consistently upheld the right to free expression as a crucial component of its democratic structure. However, this liberty only applies within a set of constraints. Sedition and symbolic expression are two types of communication that will be examined in depth in this essay, along with the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decisions. This analysis will also consider how these rulings correspond with the principles of free speech, and will conclude with my personal opinion of the judgments.
Seditious Speech Case
Sedition is stirring up insurrection against the government in the broadest sense. A particular case involving seditious speech that the Supreme Court handled is Gitlow v. New York (1925). In this instance, Benjamin Gitlow, the defendant, was accused of spreading a “Left Wing Manifesto” that called for overthrowing the government.
Interestingly, this was one of the first instances where the Supreme Court implied that the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process provision could allow for extending First Amendment protections to state governments. Gitlow was found guilty following New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision (Velenchuk 33). It was argued that a state has the authority to stop subversive activities that might endanger its existence.
I believe this decision was consistent with the nation’s democratic ideals. While upholding the country’s stability and security is paramount, protecting freedom of speech is also crucial. It serves as a reminder that, despite being broad, the right to free expression must be balanced by concerns for the general well-being of society. Additionally, the Court’s position aims to censor speech that has the potential to incite violence and cause harm rather than necessarily suppressing the expression of opposition.
Symbolic Communication Case
On the other hand, symbolic communication refers to behaviors that convey specific ideologies or points of view. Gregory Lee Johnson burned the American flag during a political demonstration in Texas v. Johnson (1989), considered one of the seminal instances of symbolic speech. This case pushed the bounds of public discourse by highlighting the conflict between cultural standards and constitutional rights (Velenchuk 19). The Texas court’s decision to sentence Johnson was reversed by the Supreme Court, which reasoned that his flag burning constituted First Amendment-protected symbolic speech.
Depending on your perspective, the Court’s conclusion in this instance can seem debatable. Nevertheless, I concur with the ruling because it illustrates the First Amendment’s broad protections. Burning a flag expressed a political message, albeit seen as impolite. It serves as more evidence that, as long as they do not promote violence, provocation, and dissenting speech, they are protected under the United States First Amendment, which goes beyond acceptable or pleasant remarks.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s opinions on seditious and symbolic expression have demonstrated a nuanced grasp of the scope and bounds of the First Amendment. It has remained committed to upholding national security in cases of sedition while ensuring the survival of dissent and disagreement. In contrast, symbolic speech has shown a comprehension of the difficulties associated with expression, offering security for even those acts that can appear contentious or unsettling to the general audience. As a result, notwithstanding the likelihood of disagreement, the Court’s rulings are consistent with the democratic principles embodied in the American Constitution. They strike a balance between the right to free speech and the maintenance of order and security in society.
Works Cited
Velenchuk, Timofey. Freedom of Expression, a Comparative Law Perspective: The United States: Study. Publications Office of the European Union, 2019.