This case is a bit difficult to understand, please patience to read,Think carefully, will have the inspiration to you! 

   In January 30, 1970, two police officers Luomin, Massachusetts, to see a man named Ge Gen, wearing a somewhat strange trousers. Jeans in the left buttock, he sewed a piece of about 10 cm wide and 15 cm long stripes -- the United States flag. The police officer saw him speak in the downtown area and a group of people, but apparently not in what rally held, also did not lead people watching or impede traffic things happen. When the police inquired the puerarin, his pants on the flag is going on, but it caused the people set the whole room roaring with laughter.

The second day, the two officers according to the Massachusetts banned "destroyed, defaced, trampling, and scornful abuse USA flag" legal, kudzu root to court. The state law, publicly destroyed, defaced, trampling and scornful abuse flag, no matter this flag is public property or private property, shall be punished by the law, sentenced to 10 yuan to 100 yuan fine, or sentenced to one year's imprisonment.

  Police officers accused of Gegen "contemptuously abuse flag". The flag sewn at the hip, "Is it right? Scornful abuse flag"?

Wo Worcester County Superior Court trial, the jury convicted Gegen guilty. The court Gegen 6 months in prison. Pueraria appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the state Supreme Court upheld the original verdict. When the root to begin serving a sentence, to the Federal District Court of Massachusetts to applicant physical protection area, which requires the federal court to review the decision of the case. The results, the federal district court that, in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution of the "due process" principle, the Massachusetts law "scornful abuse flag" clause is too vague, but, this law is too broad, in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution provides for freedom of speech.

Officers appealed to the federal court of appeal. The appeals court agreed area court ruling that state law, Massa Chusetts did not provide enough standards and norms, in order to prove what kind of behavior is "scornful abuse flag". State law does not give people adequate warning language, nor give law enforcement line law enforcement officers clear enough, did not give the court and jury to clear the judgment standard. This language the words too vague law is not established, shall be abolished.

In 1974, the case was appealed to the Supreme court. This is the famous Smith v. Goguen (Smith v.Goguen).

The Supreme Court's ruling

The Federal Supreme Court by 6 ∶ 3 made of a favorable ruling, judge Powell's Court issued a verdict.

Justice Powell pointed out, the legal language words not fuzzy, this principle is no doubt, because this principle and law of "impartiality" and judicial disciplinary significance closely connected. The Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution of the "due process" clause, the legislature at the time of legislation, to provide criteria for judging the clear enough for law enforcement personnel and the public, to avoid the subjective and arbitrary law enforcement officers and discriminative judgement. But in this case, the Massachusetts law "openly contemptuous toward the United States flag" argument, too vague, can not provide clear judicial judgment in the case.

Judge Powell said in the verdict, as early as in 1968, the Supreme Court has pointed out, "some people seem contemptuous behavior, to others may be a kind of art". Now the flag has become a decorative fashion of young people, Americans often on hats, T-shirts decorated flag. When the dog or ice cream, often in a small Chinese flag. Massachusetts law total not to put these acts are illegal. But nowadays many optional flag decoration, in the eyes of people and some of the more rigid conservative, have the suspicion of contempt flag. Judges pointed out that, law does not compel people to guess what is legal. If use the flag embroidered hat is not "contempt", with "contempt" pants, so the line in what place? The law does not expressly the dividing line, so that "too vague" law, can only make people not know what course to take; at the same time, this lack of criteria for judging the law, allows the police, prosecutors and the jury in accordance with the value preference of their own judgment. This does not guarantee consistent, can not guarantee that make no exception to all laws, in clear violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution of the "due process" principle, so it is unconstitutional.

Justice Powell recognized, in some areas of human behavior, government legislation is difficult to do everything to make precise provisions, by people, law enforcement officers and the courts judge according to the specific time. For example, in a massive protest, in order to maintain order, law enforcement officers must make the judgement, allowed the protesters to do what, do what the protesters are not allowed. But "the law is not the special case contemptuously abuse flag", the law can't tell if someone is "the right to dispose of contempt flag" to law enforcement personnel, but should be pre made clear provisions, the law enforcement officers of law. The flag is used by the flag ceremony, to do the decoration, is now popular fashion, but also fashion has been changed, so rich and colorful form, the government can not put them all a stick into illegal. It requires the law to make sure of, what is illegal. If the legal language is not able to make it, it could not be used to punish. Justice Powell announced, Massachusetts law about "scornful abuse flag", because "too vague" null and void.

Justice White's opinion

In the vote to judge of the Supreme Court, a judge White (White). He agreed with justice Powell's opinion: the laws of the state of Massachusetts "contempt flag" unconstitutional; but he did not agree with the ruling in the grounds of Powell. 　

  White said the judge, Supreme Court ruling, Massachusetts law unconstitutional because fuzzy language lack of judgment standard clear, although he also believes that the state law should be declared invalid, did not think this is because it is "too vague". He said, there are a series of actions, as long as people according to common sense, we can not permit judge self-evident, that is a kind of contempt, sexual behavior. In relation to the flag, some acts are prohibited by state law "contempt of use", also may be clear, do not need to law enforcement personnel temporary speculation. In this case, anyone can judge, the flag in the hip joint, is a "contempt" for the flag.

  Therefore, justice White think, Massachusetts law at this point is not "too vague", Hone also know. He cited the main arguments of Puerarin: he sew a flag patch in the hip, is to express an opinion. This point of view, the officers considered unpatriotic, that is to say America puerarin, is a rationing just sitting in the bottom of the place, even want to express more unbearable. Anyway, his approach to express a strong point of view, it is not wrong.

  Therefore, justice White pointed out, the Massachusetts law at least for Pueraria is not fuzzy. Not null and void because some at the edge of the behavior is difficult to judge announced a law "is too vague.".

  In this way, White's views with justice Powell be quite different, since he thought that state law does not blur. So, why did he still think that the state law should be abolished? 　

  He says, the real problem that can not be avoided, Massachusetts law "treat contemptuously flag" terms, what Is it right? Violated the first amendment to the Constitution on the principles of freedom of speech. The first amendment free speech, of course, is to talk to. If a behavior can not express any views or opinions, that is not in the scope of the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court pointed out, some of the behaviors in the 1968 United States v. AUB good case, despite the expression of views, is the expression of sexual behavior, the government has the power to the time, place, way to regulate or prohibit. 　

  Justice White think, no doubt, Congress now has the right to determine the national flag, integrity will also have the right to legislate to protect the flag. The flag was in human affairs has played an important role. The United States of America have its own flag, also can have the corresponding laws to manage, decide how to use, display, placing the flag, as well as how to manufacture, sell, imitation, have destroyed the flag.

  Visible, in fact, justice White is a member of the Supreme Court of claims in the protection of the national flag. So, why he agreed to of a favorable judgment? White said, according to the Massachusetts law and sentenced guilty not Pueraria, Pueraria do what matters to the national flag, but puerarin "treat contemptuously" of the United States flag. According to this one of conviction, it is not only the punishment of Pueraria do what matters to the national flag, and to punish the puerarin on flag "expression" some dominant majority disliked the idea.

  That is to say, although the puerarin is doing something on the flag (sewing patches on the hip), but the state law to punish him for not only is he to flag do, but he want to flag "expression" thought. State law here not only prohibited behavior, and banned the expression of ideas. It is this point, justice White cannot agree.

   Review the Federal Supreme Court decision in a case involving the national flag, justice White pointed out, in America, law cannot force anyone to honor the flag. In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in the past to establish such rules: use the spoken or written language to express contempt and lack of respect the national flag, is not subject to legal punishment. Similarly, a flag behavior, if you have enough "expression" ideological significance, it should be protected by the first amendment of the constitution. Massachusetts law where the trouble is, if its behavior is not "expression" any thought, so we can't talk about "contempt towards" flag. If that puerarin behavior is "contempt towards" flag, then this "contempt" is to "express" root "thought", this expression must be protected by the principle of freedom of speech in the first amendment to the constitution.

  Therefore, justice White said, he agreed with the Supreme Court majority opinion, the Massachusetts law should be declared invalid.