Flag burning and symbolic speech

"Oyez, Oyez, Oyez," the most comprehensive multimedia database on the U.S. Supreme Court, provides access to selected oral arguments conducted before the Court. One of the most interesting cases of the 1980s was Texas v. Johnson (1989), which involved the question of whether flag burning was constitutional. Go to the Oyez web site, http://www.oyez.org/oyez/frontpage, and search for the Texas v. Johnson (1989) case. Listen to the following segments of the oral argument: Time 0:00 - 6:10, and time 38:55 - 43:25. Identify at least three different examples of what might constitute "flag desecration" that are discussed in these segments of the oral argument. Based on the discussion, how does one of the justices suggest that burning a flag might actually increase its power as a national symbol? What is the Texas attorney's response to this claim?




Hate crimes and the First Amendment

One of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) responsibilities is to investigate and prosecute individuals who commit hate crimes. These activities are part of the FBI's Civil Rights Program, which is designed to "enforce federal civil rights statutes and to ensure that the protected civil rights of all inhabitants are not abridged." Go to the FBI's home page at http://www.fbi.gov/ and follow the link to the Bureau's "Programs and Initiatives," where you can find information on the Civil Rights Program and the FBI's enforcement of hate crime statutes. Read over the FBI's discussion of hate crimes, in particular its explanation of how the law defines a hate crime, and the Bureau's summaries of the four federal statutes that outline the FBI's jurisdiction in this area. How could someone use the First Amendment to argue that one or more of these hate crime statutes are unconstitutional? How could someone use the First Amendment to argue that the statutes are consistent with the Constitution, and indeed are required to protect the civil liberties of the nation's citizens?