Over The Past Several Decades There Has Been Numerous Discussions

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 the history of the Supreme Court, there have been many First Amendment cases that outline if exercises of free speech and expression are constitutional or unconstitutional. One of the most paramount 1st amendment cases is that of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). This significant case helped shape the extension of symbolic speech, as well as ensure the freedom of speech and expression to students in schools.

The issue of burning the American flag, as a means of expression is continuously argued today. Many

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

The American Flag is symbol of freedom to those individuals living in the United States. To the soldiers who fight for our freedom, seeing the flag they honor and salute disgraced and disrespected is like a “slap in the face”. Topics discussed throughout this paper are as follows The Star Spangled Banner, American traditions involving the flag, how to fold the flag and what each fold symbolizes, how to properly handle and when/when not to fly the flag as well as, flag burning, a few major case laws about the flag, pending Supreme Court cases regarding the American flag, the reasons for the decisions made, how things have changed over time and some arguments for/against, pros/cons will be discussed so that we all

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

While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas in 1984, respondent Johnson participated in a political protest. The purpose of this event was to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and of certain Dallas-based corporations. The demonstrators marched through the Dallas streets, chanting political slogans and stopping at several corporate locations to dramatize the consequences of nuclear war. On several occasions they spray-painted the walls of buildings and overturned potted plants, but Johnson himself took no part in such activities. He did, however, accept an American flag handed to him by a fellow protestor. The demonstration ended in front of Dallas City Hall, where Johnson unfolded the American flag, drenched it with kerosene, and set it on fire. While the flag burned, the protestors chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, though several witnesses had said that they had been seriously offended by the flag burning.

This week’s case study, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall as a means of protest against the policies of the Reagan administration. He was arrested by Dallas police officers and he was charged with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” In this case, it was the contention of the arresting officers that burning the American flag was an act of desecration which was punishable by law. Section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code was enacted by the Texas State Legislature, at the time when this matter was brought to trial, the parties involved were the State of Texas and Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least

The 1960’s was the height of many civil rights and anti-war protests. During this time, student activist became more radical. It began mostly on college campuses when students would organize “teach-ins” to express their opposition to the Vietnam War. In 1969, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines. This case changed the history of America because it gave students freedom to voice their opinions. In the case of Tinker v. Des Moines, the question of whether or not the First Amendment’s free speech rights extend to students’ symbolic speech can be analyzed by examining the background, considering the arguments, and reviewing the impact.

In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

The decision in this case seems to have left public school students’ free speech rights in an ambiguous state. The Justices in support of the majority opinion—Justices Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia—were thus

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,

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 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