Personal Interpretations and Individualizing Freedom of Speech

• In Event: History and Law & Policy Divisions - Research Presentations
  In Paper Competition: History Division - Research-in-Progress Presentations

Abstract

When the issue arose in the late 1980s, the public did not exactly welcome the idea of the First Amendment protecting the burning of such a venerated object as the American flag. Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged his agreement with the sentiment and that he personally abhors flag burning, but also that he believes it is undeniably protected by the First Amendment. Decades later Scalia is still defending the Court’s controversial decision in the case Texas v. Johnson. During his self-proclaimed “stump speech” given at The University of Tennessee on April 15, 2014 he argued that while he did not want to side with the majority, he must because, “that was my understanding of the First Amendment.” His essential defense for the ruling was that the “Constitution made me do it.” However, as he admitted it was his interpretation of the Constitution that led him to this outcome. By Scalia’s own admission there are multiple methods for interpreting the Constitution, and specifically for the First Amendment. These methods produce different justifications and rationales for the protections afforded by the freedom of speech clause.

Authors

• Shiela Hawkins, University of Tennessee's College of Communication and Information

• Jason Lee Guthrie, Clayton State University