Court Opinion

ID: 9480073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:37:07.857787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:27.663520
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, this case is controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. Johnson, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). The first amendment prohibits the government from criminally punishing appellant for burning the flag of the United *927States as a means of political protest. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the district court.
EXPRESSIVE CONDUCT
As noted by the majority opinion, appellant’s burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct that implicates the first amendment. Majority opinion at 913-914 (Part IIA). As in Texas v. Johnson, “[t]he expressive, overtly political nature of this conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent.” 109 S.Ct. at 2540. Appellant intended to convey a particularized message, specifically, his opposition to the United States’ continued military involvement in Honduras, and, given the timing of appellant’s conduct and the context in which it occurred, the likelihood was great that this message would be understood by those who viewed it.
FACIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL
I would hold that 18 U.S.C. § 700 is unconstitutional on its face. First, although the government can restrict expressive conduct more than it can written or spoken words, “[i]t may not ... proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements.” Texas v. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. at 2540 (emphasis in original). That is precisely what this statute does — it prohibits certain conduct because of its negative, critical message. As eloquently stated by Judge Browning in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Crosson, 462 F.2d 96, 108 (9th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064, 93 S.Ct. 569, 34 L.Ed.2d 517 (1972),
[Title] 18 U.S.C. § 700 does not simply prohibit the burning of a flag. It punishes one who “knowingly casts contempt” upon a flag, by various means, including burning. The burning of a flag is not inherently contemptuous, see, e.g., 36 U.S.C. § 176[ (k) (authorizing destruction of the flag “in a dignified way, preferably by burning”) ]; and by its terms the statute punishes only flag burning that expresses contempt. Flag burning that is not communicative is not prohibited, nor, for that matter, is flag burning or other conduct that expresses loyalty and respect. The statute does not prohibit the private destruction of a flag even if done to express contempt. The conduct is punished only if done “publicly,” that is, under such circumstances that the contempt expressed by the conduct may be communicated to another.
Cf. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 361, 51 S.Ct. 532, 533, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931) (state statute prohibiting display of red flag in a public place “as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposition to organized government” held unconstitutional).
Second, this statute is not neutral with respect to viewpoint. This statute prohibits specific conduct only when that conduct expresses a particular point of view, that is, a point of view that the government, or society, considers offensive, disagreeable or disrespectful of the flag. Moreover, another statute recommends destruction of a flag by burning. Title 36 U.S.C. § 176(k) provides that a flag, “when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.” Each statute addresses the same conduct— burning the flag. What differentiates the criminal act from the authorized act is the message or idea associated with each. Defiance is prohibited; respect is authorized. The fact that only the public display of contemptuous conduct is prohibited emphasizes the importance of its communicative impact. The government cannot consistent with the first amendment “ensure that a symbol be used to express only one view of that symbol or its referents.” Texas v. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. at 2546; see United States v. Crosson, 462 F.2d at 108 n. 7 (Browning, J., dissenting), citing Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58, 63, 90 S.Ct. 1555, 1559, 26 L.Ed.2d 44 (1970) (government cannot authorize persons not on active duty to wear a military uniform as an actor portraying a member of the armed forces only if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force). Cf. Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 319, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 1165, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988) (content neutrality).
REGULATION OF EXPRESSION
Although 18 U.S.C. § 700 is unconstitutional for the reasons discussed above, this *928statute is also unconstitutional under either the relatively lenient test set forth in United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968) (O’Brien), which, in my view, does not apply here, or the more demanding test set forth in Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974), which I think does apply.
In O’Brien, the defendant was convicted of knowingly destroying his selective service registration certificate in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462(b). That provision prohibited the knowing destruction of the certificates, did not distinguish between public and private destruction, and did not punish destruction engaged in only for the purpose of expressing views. 391 U.S. at 375, 88 S.Ct. at 1678. The Court held that “when ‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.” Id. at 376, 88 S.Ct. at 1678-79. However, the Court limited this test to those cases in which “the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression.” Id. at 377, 88 S.Ct. at 1679. The Court upheld O’Brien’s conviction because he was not punished for his expressive conduct, that is, for protesting against the Vietnam War, but for the noncommunicative impact of his conduct, that is, for frustrating the smooth and efficient functioning of the selective service system. Id. at 382, 88 S.Ct. at 1681. The Court thus distinguished O’Brien from a case in which “the alleged governmental interest in regulating conduct arises in some measure because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful.” Id. at 382, 88 S.Ct. at 1681, citing Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 51 S.Ct. 532.
In order to decide whether the more lenient O’Brien test applies here, we must decide whether the government has asserted an interest in support of appellant’s conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of free expression. At trial and in its initial brief on appeal, the government asserted its interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity to justify appellant’s conviction. After Texas v. Johnson, the federal government can no longer rely on this interest. “Since the national interest in patriotism, loyalty, and unity does not warrant censorship of contemptuous and disrespectful views directed against the government itself, it can hardly justify censorship of such views when directed against the mere symbol of government.” United States v. Crosson, 462 F.2d at 110 (Browning, J., dissenting) (federal government); cf. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. at 2542-48 (rejecting state’s interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity). The government now claims that its interest in preventing breaches of the peace justifies appellant’s conviction.
In my view, O’Brien does not apply here because the governmental interest in regulating conduct is not unconnected to the suppression of free expression. Here, the governmental interest in preventing breaches of the peace arises precisely “because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful.” O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 382, 88 S.Ct. at 1682. Because 18 U.S.C. § 700 is aimed at suppressing communication, it cannot be sustained as a regulation of noncommuni-cative conduct. Id., citing NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers Union, 377 U.S. 58, 79, 84 S.Ct. 1063, 1074, 12 L.Ed.2d 129 (1964) (Black, J., concurring). To paraphrase Professor Nimmer,
it is precisely the particular idea conveyed by the act of [burning the flag] that it is feared will lead to a violent or unlawful reaction. Thus, insofar as the governmental objective is the suppression of the communication of an idea in order to avoid resulting violence, it is an anti-speech interest, i.e., an interest in the suppression of speech.
Nimmer, The Meaning of Symbolic Speech Under the First Amendment, 21 UCLA L.Rev. 29, 53-54 (1973) (footnotes omitted), cited in Monroe v. State Court, 739 F.2d 568, 574 (11th Cir.1984). But cf. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. at 2541 n. 4 (suggesting *929that desire to prevent a violent audience reaction is not necessarily “related to expression” in the same way that a desire to prevent an audience from being offended is “related to expression”).
Even assuming for purposes of analysis that the governmental interest in preventing breaches of the peace is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, the governmental interest in preventing breaches of the peace is not implicated on these facts. Unlike the states, the federal government does not possess the police power to prevent breaches of the peace, at least not on the public sidewalks and public streets of the city of Minneapolis where this demonstration occurred. See United States v. Crosson, 462 F.2d at 110 & n. 11 (Browning, J., dissenting) (citing cases). The federal government could have prosecuted appellant for attempted destruction of property of the United States (the recruitment center, not the flag, which was private property), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361, or, assuming the recruitment center is military property or property within the special territorial jurisdiction of the United States, arson of military property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 81, or malicious injury or destruction of property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1363. Had the federal government prosecuted appellant for these or similar offenses, the federal government’s interest in protecting its property would have 'men unrelated to the suppression of exprt ssion.
Unlike the federal government, the state does have an interest in preventing breaches of the peace and could have prosecuted appellant for disorderly conduct, breach of the peace, participating in a riot, or even vandalism. See, e.g., Monroe v. State Court, 739 F.2d at 575. The state’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace would have been unrelated to the suppression of expression. Despite the emphasis of the government and the majority opinion on the disorderly and disruptive nature of the demonstration, appellant was not immediately arrested or charged with any breach-of-the-peace type offense by the local authorities on the basis of his conduct. Local police officers were present during the demonstration. Appellant was later arrested and charged with arson by the local authorities, but that charge was subsequently dropped.
IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION
The applicable test is the demanding standard set forth in Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 94 S.Ct. 2727 — whether the government’s interest in preventing breaches of the peace is so substantial as to justify infringement of appellant’s first amendment rights. Assuming for purposes of analysis that the federal government has a valid interest in preventing breaches of the peace, the government cannot suppress expression in order to keep the peace unless it can show that the expression, or expressive conduct, “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 1829, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (footnote omitted) (Ku Klux Klan speech). This is because “a principal ‘function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.’ ” Texas v. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. at 2541, citing Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4, 69 S.Ct. 894, 896, 93 L.Ed. 1131 (1949) (speech condemning various political and racial groups).
I have reviewed the record in the present case, including the videotape of the demonstration, and I cannot conclude that the government established either that appellant burned the flag in order to incite imminent lawless action or that a breach of the peace was a likely reaction to appellant’s conduct. In fact, the lawless and violent acts that did occur in connection with the demonstration, the breaking of the windows of the recruitment center and the shooting of fireworks through the broken windows, occurred several minutes before appellant burned the flag. Appellant’s burning of the flag apparently signalled the end of the demonstration. No imminent lawless action occurred as a result of *930or in reaction to appellant’s expressive conduct.
Finally, it makes no difference for first amendment analysis that appellant could have expressed his views just as effectively in a different manner, that is, by means other than burning the flag. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S.Ct. at 2546 n. 11, citing Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. at 411 n. 4, 94 S.Ct. at 2731 n. 4. This statute cannot be upheld as a time, place and manner regulation.
Because I would hold that appellant’s conviction is not consistent with the first amendment, I would reverse the judgment of the district court.