Recent happenings in US politics have shown how different individuals express their freedom of speech and expression especially as a reaction to what they view as social injustices. Some have knelt on one knee during the American anthem as a protest to racism, the tearing down of statues and much more. Often, those who engage in such action are looking for social and political attention to an issue they feel is affecting certain individuals or groups in society and may not be getting the needed attention. One occurrence of political actions was experienced in 2016 when a group of protestors stomped on the flag and others set it on fire as a sign of protest against racial oppression ( Fox News, 2016) . The court ruled that the protestors had the right to step on the flag as they were legally allowed by the first amendment. Evidently, flag burning or stomping is protected by the first amendment.
The first amendment has provisions that protects one’s freedom of speech, assembly, press and petitioning the government for redress to grievances. There is immense ambiguity in this amendment as it does not specifically spell out which actions are considered legal or illegal when considering the right to peaceably assemble, the freedom to speech or press. The provisions allow for individuals to engage in varied actions they feel will get the needed attention. Issues of how the flag should be treated when people are protesting peacefully are also not included in the amendment but fall under the general rights and freedoms mentioned therein. Therefore, the protestors were allowed by law to burn and step on the flag as the court ruled.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Even when individuals are allowed to exercise given freedoms as stipulated under the first amendment, action taken should be weighed to identify which would be effective but remain unoffensive. Donald Davidson identifies an action that is projected to produce a given consequence may be intentional but some consequences may not be anticipated ( Joseph, 2004) . His thoughts marry well with various social actions geared towards social change. In many instances, actions are geared towards achieving a certain goal and these goals are usually achieved. Nonetheless, some unintended consequences could be experienced including eventual violence.
In the case of using the flag, the protestors intentions could be for the good of a given group but the action taken against the flag could offend some in the same society. The case at hand saw the focus of the protest shift from wanting a given change towards how some were offended by the flag being stepped on or burned ( Fox News, 2016) . To this end, such displays of using the flag in a manner that was demonstrated by the protestors should not be allowed on college campus. It is because campus populations are highly diverse meaning that significantly different reactions to such actions will be expected. If such action is allowed, the likelihood of sparking violence is high. College students are often inclined politically and in some instances to extreme ends. Therefore, those who value the flag will feel extremely offended while those who view it as their right to protest may not find any offense in it.
Therefore, campuses can include given specifications for the use of the flag in protests when on campus and when away. It should not bar individuals from adopting varied ways of protesting but should have limits in the action that can be taken. As an institution of learning, it needs to hold the flag in high regard and therefore have stun stipulations in place for the use of the flag when students are engaging in protests.
References
Fox News. (2016). Flag-stomping protesters sparking outrage on campaign trail . Youtube.com. Retrieved 31 March 2021, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_F-TLpenHw.
Joseph, M. A. (2004). Donald Davidson (Vol. 1). McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
