Law and Politics

Start Free Trial

Apply the Supreme Court's rules to the following cases. 1. If one person protests the US foreign policy by burning a US flag (that they purchased with their own money) while another person burns the military draft card (that they received from the government), the two actions will be treated differently by the government. Which of these two actions is protected by the First Amendment's free speech, and which one is not? Explain why. 2. If the local high school's anatomy book contains an image of a naked person, can the community sue the school district for spreading obscenities? Explain your answer. Refer to the specific rules issued by the US Supreme Court regulating obscenities.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

In the first scenario, burning one's American flag is protected under freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the United States constitution. The burning of an American flag had, at one point, been illegal in almost every state in the country. However, several legal challenges to flag burning bans...

See
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial to unlock this answer and thousands more. Enjoy eNotes ad-free and cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

In the first scenario, burning one's American flag is protected under freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the United States constitution. The burning of an American flag had, at one point, been illegal in almost every state in the country. However, several legal challenges to flag burning bans culminated in the US Supreme Court upholding one's right to burn the American flag under the First Amendment in 1990. The court narrowly ruled that flag burning was an expression of political thought and did not directly disturb the peace or threaten national security.

However, burning one's military draft card is illegal and not considered an act protected by free speech. Instead, draft card–burning is specifically outlined as illegal under the Draft Card Mutilation Act of 1965, which was upheld by the US Supreme Court after a First Amendment challenge in 1968. Essentially, the court ruled that the US must have an orderly, efficient, and standardized military draft system and that burning draft cards (a popular tactic of resistance in the antiwar efforts of the 1960s), which were required to be on one's person, directly hindered this national interest and, in turn, the US war effort.

In regards to a high school anatomy textbook illustrating a naked person, this illustration is not considered obscene according to US law because it holds serious scientific value and does not exploit minors. US courts consider the protection of minors and the three-pronged Miller Test to legally determine obscenity. The third portion of the test is often the real determining factor: it asks if a reasonable person "finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

Last Updated by eNotes Editorial on