How the Supreme Court decreed that burning the American flag is just "free speech"

A day after our delightful, fun-filled 4th I saw a video on the Net of a few hate-filled blacks in the socialist shithole of NYC burning the American flag and screaming "F*ck the 4th!"  (Literally.)

Commenters on that site were stunned: all thought burning the American flag was illegal.  But on June 21, 1989 the Supreme Court--which at the time was majority-liberal--DECREED that burning the American flag was a protected form of free speech.  That liberal ruling has survived to this day. You can burn the American flag or do anything you want to it, and Democrats are fine with it.  

So if you're a young American, and if liberals have DECREED that burning the American flag is fine, then logically burning ANY flag would also be protected speech, eh?

Hahahahaha!  You'll soon learn that "logic" means something different to Democrats than to the rest of us:  Turns out burning certain flags in Dem-ruled cities will get you jailed and fined.  In fact, Dems are so insane that they'll jail you even for leaving tire marks on streets painted with certain combinations of colors.  Of course those are so-called "pride" or "trans flags," or even paintings of those flags on street intersections.

Democrats don't see the utter hypocrisy.  "Burning duh U.S. flag beez free speech, but don' yew DARE disrespek ouah pride or trans flags!"

I'll show ya those cases at the end, but I wanna start by explaining the 1989 case that led the Supreme Court to decree that burning the American flag was "free speech."

In August of 1984 the Republicans were having their presidential convention in Dallas.  GOP conventions have always attracted nasty demonstrations by U.S. leftists, socialists, communists and Democrats, and 1984 was no exception.  

On August 22 a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, Gregory Lee Johnson, joined a protest, with rioters spray-painting buildings and knocking over everything they could. (Potted plants were the main hapless victims.)

When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on a stolen American flag and set it on fire.

Like 48 states, Texas had a law against "desecrating the American flag," and Johnson was charged with violating that law.  Months later a jury found him guilty and he was sentenced to a year in jail and fined $2,000.

Johnson--now represented by a legendary communist defense attorney named William Kunstler--appealed his conviction to the state's Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction. He then appealed to the state's court of criminal appeals, which reversed his conviction, claiming burning the flag was protected by the First Amendment.

The state government appealed to the Supreme Court, and on June 21, 1989 that court issued a 5–4 opinion agreeing that burning the American flag was "protected free speech."

Writing for the majority, liberal William Brennan noted that the court had long declared that even though the First Amendment clearly states "speech," what the Founders really intended was to protect ALL forms of expression.

(For curious young Americans: there is no record that the Founders actually contemplated that.  Liberal judges just made it up.)

But as you'll see below, only certain non-speech acts are protected.
   
To support the majority, Brennan noted that the court had previously overturned the conviction of a person who'd displayed a red flag at a youth camp, at a time when red flags were symbols of communism.  No destruction or damage, so it seemed reasonable to overturn.

Brennan also noted a case in which the Court recognized that a public-school student wearing a black arm-band to protest the Vietnam war was protected speech.  Same deal: no damage or destruction.  Of course neither case involved burning the American flag, but the precedent was set.  So for liberals it was a small step to legalize burning the U.S. flag.

So waving a flag or wearing an anti-war armband was protected under "free speech."  But as they are with all legal rulings, the Left is infinitely flexible when it has a goal in mind, so the court refused to honor this sacred "free speech" precedent when leftist school adminishits wanted to slap down a highschool student who wore a shirt with a picture of the American flag on it to school.

You might be curious as to how the then-liberal-majority court could so brazenly ignore its earlier precedent about displaying flags being free speech, eh?  

Easy: the "justices" ruled that wearing a shirt with a pic of the American flag on it wuz "hate speech."

Seriously...and shut up, deplorable.

You may well wonder how anyone--even moronic liberal judges--could consider wearing a picture of the American flag "hateful."  Read the opinion.

Ignoring the left's hypocrisy in that case, with highest court in duh land having DECREED that burning the American flag was now "free speech," logically that should apply to ALL flags, eh?

While you're thinking about that, let's take a brief look at "logic:"  As everyone over 30 should know, there's a thing called "ad hoc reasoning," which means "We make up the rules as we go."  The problem with this is that "ad hoc" reasoning often produces contradictory results, cuz the rulers are just making it up as they go, eh?  So a "rule" they invent to get 'em the result they want in Case A, but would block the result they want in Case B, is simply ignored.  See?

So back to our history: Sure enough, when Dem-ruled "progressive" states passed laws against burning "pride flags," and later made up laws against leaving tire marks on "pride flags" painted on street intersections, precedent should quickly, easily have the Supreme Court overturning those laws, eh?  Cuz if burning the American flag is legal, that should be true for all flags, eh?  Let alone mere paintings of flags on roadways.

Surprise!  The court has refused to hear appeals from those convictions.  Hmmm...

SO...the vast majority of Americans were so outraged by the court ruling that burning the American flag was free speech that they pushed congress passed the "Flag Protection Act," saying that just as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater isn't protected by the First Amendment, it would now be against federal law to burn the American flag.

Should clear that up, eh?

Hahahahahaha!  I see you just arrived on the planet!  Enjoy your stay.

Nah, the ACLU immediately sued, and the Supreme Court immediately overturned that law, using the same "expansive" definition of "speech" that they used in the 1989 case.  So they reinforced the notion that burning flags is merely "protected free speech."

Now, follow me here, cuz you're gonna have to think--and for Democrats that might be a novel and disorienting experience.  Did the First Amendment say "...except you're not allowed to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater when there isn't one"?

Obviously not.  So how did the court conclude that Free Speech does NOT cover that, eh?

Democrats: "Ahh, see...dat jus' beez logical, citizen!  Duh drafters of duh Constitution expected that later Americans would have to apply rules that...the Founders couldn't...have...foreseen...an' so...uh..."

Ahh, you mean like a federal law saying certain drugs are only legal if you get a prescription?  Where's that in your Constitution, eh?

Take all the time you like.

Point is, the court has decreed that there are exceptions to "absolutist free speech."  If congress agreed that burning the American flag was NOT protected Free Speech, the court should have agreed because it long ago accepted the idea that free speech is NOT absolute.

And yes, you'd need to be vigilant against totalitarians trying to stretch that to suppress speech one party didn't like--as when the Dems used the FBI to lean on Fakebook and pre-Musk Twatter to delete posts the Deep State didn't like.

In conclusion: It matters little to me whether the court wants to rule that burning the American flag is legal.  But IF they so decree, reason would demand that the court be consistent, so burning or defacing ALL flags should be equally legal.  And yet defacing some flags--even mere symbols painted on the street!--has been punished, and the vaunted Supreme Court has been silent.  

Political goals, politically achieved.

Predictably, the communist rat-bastards at Time magazine described the 1989 flag decision as "one of the best Supreme Court decisions since 1960."  And yet many states have made it a crime to deface pride and tranny flags painted on the street.  "Some symbols deserve special protection," sayeth the court.  But they go on to decree that the American flag isn't one of 'em.

Political goals, politically achieved.