The document is an outline and draft essay arguing that burning the American flag should not be protected as free speech under the First Amendment. The author proposes that the 1989 Supreme Court decision ruling flag burning as symbolic speech was made in error. The outline includes sections refuting opposing arguments, and the draft essay further develops the position that burning the flag is an act of sedition, not protected speech, and should be considered illegal.

1. Michael Punzo
Research Writing Methods
September 28, 2011
Flag Burning Outline
Thesis: I propose that the Supreme Court decision was in error in 1989, when the majority of the
Supreme Court justices ruled that the action of burning a flag was speech and therefore the action
was then protected by The First Amendment.
I. Introduction:
1. Lead-in
2. Thesis
II. Opposing point one
1. Opposition - flag burning bans violate the First Amendment
2. Refutation – Constitution interpreted in a way that was not meant by our founding
fathers
III. Opposing point two
1. Opposition - exercising first amendment right
2. Refutation - burning the flag is an act of sedition
IV. Opposing point three
1. Opposition - the First Amendment more meaningful when it protects unpopular
speech
2. Refutation - Rehnquist stated he could not "agree that the First Amendment
invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 states, which make
criminal the public burning of the flag."
V. Conclusion
1. Restate thesis
2. Final comments

2. Michael Punzo
Research Writing Methods
September 28, 2011
Burning the American Flag: Freedom of Speech or Sedition
To burn or not to burn, that is my question. Flag burning in the United States of America
is a controversial issue. As with most issues, there are two opposing opinions. On the one hand,
you have those who condone burning the American flag, claiming that their actions are protected
under the First Amendment. Yet on the other hand, you have those who are outraged by allowing
the burning of the flag, claiming that burning the flag is an action, not freedom of speech. I
believe the flag is a symbol of our nation’s unity and who we are as a living nation.
Sentimentality aside, respect for one's country and its symbols is more than just your birthright.
It is your choice. It deserves to be protected. I propose that the Supreme Court decision was in
error in 1989 when the majority of the Supreme Court justices ruled that the action of burning a
flag was a form of speech and was thus protected by The First Amendment.
The section of law dealing with American Flag etiquette is generally referred to as the
Flag Code. One of the more binding laws is the flag should be lighted at all times, either by
sunlight or by an appropriate light source. Secondly, the flag should never be dipped to any
person or thing. The flag is to be flown upside down only as a distress signal. Also, the flag
should never be used for any advertising purposes. The flag is not have any embroidery, to be
printed or pressed on items such as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything
intended to be thrown out after temporary use. Most importantly, when a flag is so worn and
tattered it is no longer fit to serve as a symbol of our country, it should be destroyed by burning

3. in a dignified manner. The American Legion and The Veterans of Foreign War hold special flag
burning ceremonies at different times to accommodate flags that need to be retired in this
respectful manner (United States Senate).
It is the ideals that the flag stands for that make it grotesque that someone would burn a
flag to show that they are exercising their first amendment right. In other words, why would you
or anyone else destroy the very thing that shows others that you can speak your mind or perform
any action when you so please. I feel that Supreme Court Justice Brennan took an extremely
liberal view of the Constitution and interpreted it in a way that was not meant by our founding
fathers. His opinion that the First Amendment allowed “symbolic speech” and “expressive
conduct” is not an interpretation that I support (Brennan). In regards to holding a Texas statue
unconstitutional, Rehnquist stated “the Court ignores Justice Holmes's familiar aphorism that ‘a
page of history is worth a volume of logic’” (Rehnquist). Since the establishment of America as
a country, our flag has played a unique role in our history. For this reason alone, the flag
deserves to be protected from any form of desecration.
The flag symbolizes who we are, 50 states united together (e pluribus Unum). The flag
stands to the world as a symbol of freedom and hope. We are a nation that has been supremely
blessed. The flag is not what we fight for, but rather the ideals the flag represents. Included in
the Constitution is the First Amendment. So, is burning the flag protected by this Amendment or
is it an act of sedition and those who chose to burn the flag, enemies of the nation? I think it is an
act of sedition. No other American symbol has been as universally honored as the flag.
Henry Hyde, the republican senator from Illinois, stated, “At work here is something
larger than the flag itself…There are well-defined limits to freedom of speech-obscenity laws,
perjury, slander, libel, copyright laws, classified information, agreements in restraint of trade and

4. the old ‘yelling fire’ when there is no fire in a crowded theatre…Somebody tell me why it is a
federal crime to burn a $20 bill, but it is OK to burn a flag” (Hyde).
The next time someone wants to burn a flag, perhaps they should ask a former veteran
who has fought to insure the American flag would stand, if it was okay to burn a flag. As a sign
of respect and honor, military personnel are given flags for their respective service. They are not
given a copy of the Constitution, but a flag. I believe that our flag is unique and deserves
protection. This American would like to see the reversal of this ruling and then replace it with a
ruling that considers flag burning an action and not freedom of speech.

5. Works Cited
1. Brennan, Justice. "Texas v. Johnson." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell
University Law School, 21 Mar. 1989. Web. 18 Sept. 2011.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZO.html>.
2. Rehnquist, Chief Justice. "Texas v. Johnson." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute.
Cornell University Law School, 21 Mar. 1989. Web. 18 Sept. 2011.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0491_0397_ZS.html>.
3. Senate, United States "Flag Code | The American Legion | Veterans Serving
Veterans." Veterans Organizations | The American Legion | Veterans Serving Veterans.
United States Government / The American Legion, 2011. Web. 24 Sept. 2011.
<http://www.legion.org/flag/code>.
4. Senate, United States "United States Code: Title 4, CHAPTER 1—THE FLAG | LII /
Legal Information Institute." LII | LII / Legal Information Institute. United States
Government / Cornell University Law School. Web. 23 Sept. 2011.
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode04/usc_sup_01_4_10_1.html>.
5. Hyde, U.S. Rep. "05/14/97 Committee on the Judiciary - Hyde Statement Re
H.J.Res.54."House Judiciary Committee. U.S. House of Representatives, n.d. Web. 25
Sept. 2011. <http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/051497.htm>.