The First Amendment is meant to protect the People of the United States from too much government encroachment on their lives, stating that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the [People] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (US Const. Amend I).

Despite the clarity of the First Amendment, its protections have often been tested and stretched to their limits in Supreme Court cases such as Texas v. Johnson, Snyder v. Phelps, and The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. In all of these cases, large majorities of Americans believed these verdicts to be unjust or wrong, but they truly are protected under the First Amendment regardless of whether or not people find them to be personally offensive.

Symbolic, student, and hate speech are often the most controversial because the lines of “right-and-wrong” are blurred or hard to identify, which is why many Americans think that cases questioning the protections of the First Amendment should be considered in a case-by-case basis.

In reality when it comes to speech regulation, the First Amendment protects the People of the United States until there are either forms of expression outside the scope of the First Amendment, violence, property damage, criminal speech, encroaching on the rights of others, burdens on government functions, trespass, and/or time, place, and manner restrictions.

Most all cases involving the First Amendment that have reached the Supreme Court level often reverse the state ruling. This is because lower-level courts are arguably more sensitive of the society in which they exist while the Supreme Court must remained unbiased by any external force, but that is truly an ideal. It has been observed that when the United States is relatively peaceful and prosperous, dissenting views are more accepted whereas when the nation is facing more terse times, tolerance declines.

This trend has been traced back to the early years of the United States with the Sedition Act of 1798, which prevented people from speaking out against the federal government. Again, this restrictive mindset also occurred during the Red Scares the U.S. endured after both WWI and WWII, during the Vietnam War, and following the terrorist attack of September 11^th, 2001. To uphold its power and attempt to minimize the fear of the People, the United States government conducts itself with a firm hand and an appearance of stability.

An issue that has just recently been touched on by president-elect Donald Trump is the controversy over flag burning. Personally, I have been caught in the middle of this controversy myself for my belief, which is that flag desecration is symbolic speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment. However, this is not just a belief of mine.

Supreme Court Case Texas v. Johnson, despite its close vote of 5-4, favored Johnson. This verdict declared and defined flag desecration as symbolic speech and a First Amendment right.

If you did not know, Texas v. Johnson occurred in 1989 when Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag at the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas. The case divided the country, as it is doing today. Many people, including president-elect Trump, believe that those who partake in this act should face some sort of punishment and even jail time.

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!" - Donald Trump

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Court sided with Phelps with an 8-1 vote, which stated that the Westboro Baptist Church had a right to protest at Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder’s funeral in Maryland despite the fact that they were holding up offensive signs and chanting hurtful things about his homosexuality. The Court ultimately sided with Phelps because the Westboro Baptist Church’s assembly was done by-the-book, meaning they received the proper permits, remained within the set parameters, and did not approach the mourners. Despite Justice Alito’s dissent and the media spectacle and public uproar the ruling of this case caused, it is incredibly telling of the protection administered by the First Amendment.

The Westboro Baptist Church has participated in over 52,000 pickets in 917 cities, and about 700 of these protests have been at military funerals for all the same reasons: they oppose homosexuality, the military, and the U.S. government for being so tolerant of “sin.”

If you were offended by something in this article, you are not alone.

No, you do not have to personally like any of the actions committed or verdicts delivered in any of these cases, but you must understand the way in which the Constitution works. For example, it does upset me to see a flag being burned or stepped on because my father is a veteran, however, I understand that it is a protected right. While I think it is terrible that the Westboro Baptist Church is so homophobic and, frankly, just downright awful, I understand that they were not in violation of their First Amendment Rights. Just because I understand DOES NOT mean I agree. That is what seems to be the hardest part for people to understand.

I am not saying you do not have a right to be angry about things. I am simply saying that it is crucial that you are knowledgeable of the Constitution, its protections, and its parameters so you can completely understand your anger and/or the reasons why a verdict is the way that it is.

I implore you to utilize your First Amendment freedom of speech and discuss this with others. Share your thoughts and opinions! After all, it is your right (so long as you do not commit any of the First Amendment infractions that I listed above).