entail any interference with the speaker’s freedom to express those ideas by other means; and (c) the interest in allowing the speaker complete freedom of choice among alternative methods of expression is less important than the societal interest supporting the prohibition. Justice Stevens concluded his opinion that by destroying the symbol of freedom, the individual communicates a willingness to destroy those freedoms themselves: By burning the embodiment of America’s collective commitment to freedom and equality, the flag burner charges that the majority has forsaken the commitment--that continued respect for the flag is nothing more than hypocrisy. Such a charge may be made even if the flag burner loves the country and zealously pursues the ideals that the country claims to honor. (Supreme) Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the ruling. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU’s National Washington Office showed her support when she said, “The First Amendment is this country’s first principle. It is a critical part of what has made our country uniquely free. We have been strengthened, not weakened, by the sweep of its language and by the Supreme Court’s adherence to its true meaning” (Apel “ACLU”). Many anti-flag desecration groups, particularly the Citizens’ Flag Alliance (CFA), were outraged by this ruling. These organizations petitioned Congress to reintroduce the Flag Protection Amendment. Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, some 10,000 attempts have been made to amend it. They have included ideas such as “eliminating the Senate,” and renaming the country the “United States of Earth.” But “never in the nations history has anyone tried to amend the Bill of Rights.” (Relin 18) To do so would be a dramatic step in that it could pave the way for further future limitations on our constitutional fr...
