Blog Post #2

United States vs Eichman talks about the protection and expression of the first amendment. The case talks about the case of Eichman burning the the United States flag in a form of protest. The Congress reacted to him by passing the Flag Protection Act of 1989, that stated that you cannot do any intention harm to a flag or you would be prosectued. Eichman and other were prosected by the United States, but the act was ruled unconstitutional by the Federal Courts in Washington State and the District of Columbia.

Arguments for the United States: 1. The Flag Protection Act does not outlaw flag burnig in order to prevent the expression of a particular point of view.Rather, it prohibits mistreatment of the flag for any reason in order to protect the flag,s identity as a national symbol.

2.Descration (abuse) of the flag is deeply offensive to many Americans. The government should have the right to protect its national symbols aganist mistreatment.

3.Protection of the flag would not interfere with protesters' ability to expresss their opinions by other means.

Arguments for Eichmans:
1. The government's effort to protect the flag limits the free expression of opposition to government policies.
2. The destruction of flag does not diminish the flags's importance as a symbol of this country.
Although many people are offended by flag descreation, the government cannot prohibit expression of ideas simply because the ideas may be offensive or disagreeable to many people.

1. The government based their agruement on represting the nation honor while, eichman base his on the first amendment.
2.They argue that burnig the flag is deface the honor the nation, while the other say it is freedom of speech. I favor Eichman because the first amendmentn should protect the freedom to expression.