Johnson Right To Free Speech Analysis

The decision of the United States Supreme Court was an unconstitutional one in my opinion. Johnson burning the flag as a way of expression should still be considered to be a rebellious

Burning a flag, as Johnson did, to express dissatisfaction with the policies of our country is the wrong way to express feeling. Other wrong ways to treat the flag is by spitting on, writing on, tearing up, or stepping on the flag.

the trial and court case shows that if johnson wouldnt have burned a flag he wouldn't have showed that even symbolic speech should be protected under the first amendment. “We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.” If johnson would have been punished to the fullest extent then it would've been the opposite of what the American flag stands for which is freedom. “The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.” He was expressing his opinion to society which should matter.

The issue brought to attention was whether or not flag burning constitutes symbolic speech. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson and said that flag burning did indeed constitute symbolic speech. The court ruled in favor of Johnson by a slim five to four lead. The majority of the court stated that freedom of speech also protects actions that people may find offensive or disagree with. The court also stated that the Texas law Johnson violated, discriminated upon viewpoint. This is what Justice William Brennan had to say; "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . .

It should be illegal for the United States flag to be burned or otherwise destroyed. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion argued that Johnson was protesting a political idea. While Johnson may have been protesting, he was using a symbol that as Chief Justice Rehnquist used in his dissent, “does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas.” The flag has a uniqueness to it; it represents freedom, equal opportunity, and the goodwill for other peoples who share in the pride for our country. This unique status should outweigh the concerns of “symbolic speech” and protecting the right of protesters that desecrate the

Some people said that Johnson should not have burned the American flag. Other people said that he could burn the flag because it was his freedom of speech. I agree that Johnson should not have burned the American flag. When Johnson burned the flag, Texas said Johnson did a criminal offence for desecrating the American flag.

The court first found that Johnson's actions were protected under the free speech clause under the

The burning or desecration of the American Flag may fall under both freedoms. When one thinks of the flag, they usually think of the blood that was shed for this country. It was shed so that we could have liberties, such as, freedom of speech and expression, which fall under the First Amendment rights of the Constitution. However, when you think of a burning flag, what comes to mind? One might say it shows disrespect and hatred to a country that has given so much. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, Johnson was accused of desecrating a sacred object, but, his actions were protected by the First Amendment. Although his actions may have been offensive, he did not utter fighting words. As stated in Source D “Justice William Brennan wrote the 5-4 majority decision in holding that the defendant’s act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” By burning the flag, Johnson did not infringe upon another's natural human rights. He was simply expressing his outrage towards the government, which is within the jurisdiction of the First Amendment. Another court case, where the 5-4 majority ruled in favor of the defendant was United States v. Eichman in 1980, a year after the Johnson case. “In the case of United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), the law was struck down by the same five person majority of justices as in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).” [Source D] Multiple times in flag burning cases,

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

“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

Freedom is defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. There are different forms of freedom, two of which are physical and mental freedom. People advocate the rights of both physical and mental freedom of others who can not. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Malala Yousafzai fought for physical freedom whereas John F. Kennedy fought for mental freedom. In order to be completely free, someone must posses both physical and mental freedom.

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

When Johnson let the South back into the Union he helped to make all the people who had died for the right to equality for all worthless. President Johnson was from the south originally. He had been a poor white living in Kentucky, and so had learned to hate the rich, white Plantation owners. But he always felt above the slaves which later influenced his decision to let the very people he had grown up hating back in to the Union. When congress passed the 13th Amendment banning slavery many of the people in the south feared what would happen to them. Johnson, who related to the poor white folk, knew that they needed someone who they could say "at least I'm better than you" about. The only way he saw to do that was by letting the South have their lands and rights back so that they could do something about their former slaves. So the pardons started rolling out of the Round Office like a printing press. The Radical Republicans weren't happy about it but at that point they couldn't stop him. The south began to return to the way it was.

1. Women in Ancient Greece Mention ancient Greece to a friend and they may think of democracy, the Olympic games or the Spartan army. However, men created many of the sources that tell us about these institutions and developments; men were also the intended audience (Scott, 2009). But the ancient Greeks still felt a female presence in many aspects of their culture, including female gods, characters in poetry and folklore, and of course in everyday life. Women in the city of Sparta were allowed to own land, and one of the Spartan kings’ sisters even entered a chariot team in the Olympic games of 396 and 392 BCE (Scott 38).

Domestic violence has been plaguing our society for years. There are many abusive relationships, and the only question to ask is: why? The main answer is control. The controlling characteristic that males attribute to their masculinity is the cause to these abusive relationships. When males don’t have control they feel their masculinity is threatened and they need to do something about it. This doesn’t occur in just their relationships, but rather every facet of life. Men are constantly in a struggle for power and control whether it is at work, home, during sports, or in a relationship, this remains true. So the only way for them to get this power is for them to be “men”; tough, strong, masculine, ones that demand and take power. Where