A Political Demonstration Of The Dallas City Hall

The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)

Texas v. Johnson or American Flag Stands for Tolerance differences? Texas's v. Johnson is the courts decision and the American Flag Stands for Tolerance is the editors opinion. In the courts decision they had to accept Gregory Johnson for his beliefs people were very petulantly of Gregory's opinion. The news paper editor, Ronald J. Allen has his own opinion about the flag getting burnt by Gregory Johnson. Ronald J. Allen opinion is that it is wrong to discriminate the American flag and he still thinks we should have freedom. William J. Brennan thinks that the court opinion is right because the first amendment but he always says one mans opinion will not change our nations attitude towards the flag.

A very controversial court case in American history was Texas vs. Johnson (1984). In 1984, a man named Gregory Lee Johnson followed a group of anti – Reagan protesters to oppose the American exploitation of third world countries. This act of rebellion resulted in the burning of the American flag. Out of a total of approximately one hundred demonstrators who were involved in this ordeal, Johnson was solely charged with a crime. Johnson was arrested under Texas law, which made the burning of the United States or Texas flags crimes. Johnson was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and fined two thousand dollars for his crime in restitution. Texas reasoned that the police were preventing

“American Flag Stands for Tolerance”, an article based on the Johnson case, focuses on “a person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies”(line2). The author of this article focused on the meaning of freedom. In line 65, the author states, “the flag stands for free expression of ideas...The ultimate irony would have been to punish views expressed by burning the flag that stands for the right to those expressions”, meaning it would be pointless to punish those who petulantly burned the flag as an expression of their thoughts, when they have the freedom to express their

Johnson was decided on June 21st of 1989 by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Gregory Lee Johnson's liberties and rights were violated, and that the burning of the U.S. flag was a constitutionally protected form of speech under the First Amendment. The court decided that flag burning was symbolic speech, and protected under the First Amendment. The opinion of the Court came down as a controversial 5–4 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy. Texas v. Johnson, was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that revoked prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Johnson’s actions, who were supported by the majority argued, that flag burning was explicitly symbolic speech, political in nature and could be expressed even if those disagreed with him, stated William Brennan. The majority also noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage is not justification for suppressing Johnson’s actions, or symbolic speech. The dissenting opinion, which was written by Justice Stevens, and included Justices Rehnquist, White, Stevens, and O’ Connor, was that the flag's unique status as a symbol of national unity outweighed "symbolic speech" concerns, and thus, the government could lawfully prohibit flag

Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

The court said the government cannot "carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . .” The court also said that the flag burning did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace. After this happened, Texas asked the Supreme Court to look at their situation and Johnson’s case.

The United States is well-known for its principles of freedom and democracy, which is demonstrated through the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Thus, American citizens can openly discuss political matters; criticize the President and his Cabinet on television, radio talk show or in the newspaper; or publicly protest against the government tax policy. However, Free Speech protection becomes debatable when some American citizens burn the nation’s flag to express their disagreement to the government. The act of burning the American Flag should be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause because the act is a symbolic expression that communicates an individual’s idea or opinion about his nation; and that

The Supreme Court’s stance on flag burning has remained the same since. Nevertheless, thirty years after United States v. Eichman, there is still controversy over whether or not it should be legal. A recent example of the present discussion on flag burning is a tweet made by President Donald Trump in 2016: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” However, without a reason to change the law besides personal opinion, the Supreme Court is not likely to reverse their decision and make flag burning

People watched in shock; Protesters and none protesters circled around as Gregory Lee Johnson lit the American Flag on fire. Why would a man disrespect a symbol such as the American flag, that represents freedom, liberty and democracy? Was he protected by the constitution's first amendment? The Supreme Court answered all these questions we had by voting in favor of Johnson. Johnson's intentions were only political, and he as the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court was correct on this decision on letting Johnson go, since he was protected by his amendments, and no matter what the action was, if the amendment gives us the right, we should be entitled to our freedoms.

The First Amendment and Texas v. Johnson address the same concepts, so they are similar. The First Amendment states that a congress does not have the right to make laws abridging the freedom of speech along with the freedom of expression. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson decides that Texas is not allowed to criminally punish Johnson, although he violated a Texas law banning flag desecration by burning the American flag, because flag burning is a form of expression and speech protected by the First Amendment. Furthermore, the rights and freedoms listed in the First Amendment essentially lets people know that they have to be tolerate of other people’s viewpoints since everyone has the right to freedom of speech and freedom of

The issue of flag desecration has been and continues to be a highly controversial issue; on the one side there are those who believe that the flag is a unique symbol for our nation which should be preserved at all costs, while on the other are those who believe that flag burning is a form of free speech and that any legislation designed to prevent this form of expression is contrary to the ideals of the First Amendment to our Constitution. Shawn Eichman, as well as the majority of the United States Supreme Court, is in the latter of these groups. Many citizens believe that the freedom of speech granted to them in the First Amendment means that they can express themselves in any manner they wish as long as their right of

United States v. Eichman 496 U.S. 310 (1990) is a case following Texas v. Johnson in which Shawn Eichman decided to challenge his arrest and conviction for burning of a flag under the law to the Supreme Court. Eichman burned a flag on the steps of the U.S. Capitol protesting against the government’s domestic and foreign policies. He was prosecuted in violation of the Flag Protection Act. When the Court looked at this case, they also reviewed the case of United States v. Haggerty 496 U.S. 310 (1990). United States v. Haggerty involves defendant Mark Haggerty who burned a flag in Seattle protesting against the passage of the Flag Protection Act. The Court ruled against the government in both cases saying that the government had an interest in protecting the physical integrity of a flag to preserve its symbol meaning,

Texas v. Johnson (No. 88-155). Argued: March 21, 1989. Decided: June 21, 1989 In 1984 the Republican National Convention was held in Dallas, Texas. While there, a group of protesters, opposed to President Reagan's reelection, burned an American flag. Specifically, Greg Johnson was seen dousing the flag with kerosene and lighting it on fire. Johnson was arrested under a Texas flag desecration law. He was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2000. The State Court of Appeals affirmed but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision.