Gregory Lee Johnson

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)

In 1989 the United States Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag was a form of symbolic speech and therefore was protected by the United States Constitution. What would happen if they took away the right of freedom of speech? How would people express their feelings and emotions towards the government? Many people would feel as though the government was attacking the basis of one of our nation's strongest beliefs. Many would argue over this situation. Protestors would raise all sorts of questions. What is a free nation that does not allow political disagreement? What is a free nation that will not allow itself to be spoken out against? What is a free nation that wants to punish those who oppose its hypocritical principals?

This case then was put up to the national level and sent to the United States Supreme Court. There was great public attention because of media. Many groups involved themselves in either trying to support that Texas violated Johnson's first amendment right of freedom of expression, or tried to get a new amendment passed to the constitution stopping the burning of the United States’ flag. The final decision by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1989 was by a 5 – 4 vote, that the Texas court of criminal appeals violated Johnson's first amendment rights by prosecuting him under its law for burning a flag as a means of a peaceful political demonstration. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was "expressive conduct" because it was an attempt to "convey a particularized message." This ruling invalidated flag protection laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

“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

In result to this case, the majority of the court noted that the Texas law discriminated upon the law. They feel that this act might bring up anger in other people and more flag burning. The majority of the court also agreed that Johnson had the right to use that form of symbolic speech because it is protected by the first amendment. They find this act is very offensive, but the society’s outrage alone is not justification for depressing Johnson’s freedom of speech.

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

Johnson, was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag. Texas V. Johnson is a very important law in America because it has to do with our country's flag that our veterans have fought for. The Supreme Court made the decision that everyone is entitled to their own opinion for many reasons. It related to the quote because Texas V. Johnson makes sure that no matter how different someone is or someone's actions or feelings towards something is they will always be allowed to their own feelings without fear of someone inhibiting it as long as what they're doing is not life threatening to themselves or others, which is very important because many people have very strong feelings towards our country's flag and this law is here to protect how everyone treats and feels towards the flag because people can be defensive or hurtful since their feelings can be so strong towards our nations flag considering what it means for our country. The Texas V. Johnson is also protected by the first amendment and in lines (1-2) it says “We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of principles protected by the first amendment”. Under our constitution, compulsion is employed as a permissible means for its achievement which is stated in lines (7-12) that officially says “National unity… under our constitution, compulsion as here employed as a permissible means for it's achievement”. The fist

The principle to the case is burning a U.S. flag in protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. In determining the case, the court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment reached non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ‘speech,’ but has long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an

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

The court also concluded that that the flag-desecration statute was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that were likely to result in a serious disturbance of the peace. The flag burning in this particular case did not threaten such a reaction. There were only a few witnesses to the act that stated that they were upset with the action but were not harmed in any way. There was no breach of peace nor does the record reflect that the situation was potentially explosive. Just because someone was

In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, the defendant Gregory Johnson and the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade protested the Reagan administration policies. During this protest, Johnson burned an American flag on the steps of city hall. Johnson was arrested, tried, and convicted of violating a Texas law that outlawed the desecration or destruction of the United States flag. Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail and had to pay a $2,000 fine. Johnson appealed the conviction stating that the Texas law was a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech. He lost his first appeal in the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas. However, his second appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction. Texas then

These controversial discussions of the protection of flag desecration have been around for decades, but have only recently resurfaced. There have been court cases of flag desecration throughout history, the most well-known case being Texas v. Johnson of 1989. In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson exercised his right of freedom of speech by burning an American

It is no wonder, then, that Jim becomes disturbed when he turns on the news and sees our flag being burned in the streets of foreign nations. What disturbs him even more is when he sees the American flag being burned by Americans in America. In 1989, the Supreme