Protest Begets Freedom Analysis

This case did not change or add any amendments, but the first amendment played a big role in it. The First Amendment guarantees the rights of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic government, These rights include freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech (First Amendment, Dictionary.com). It protects people’s freedom of speech, and emphasize the right of symbolic speech as well, This case remains relevant today, and it is still a controversial issue. Because under the first amendment, people have the freedom of speech. The Court supports the flag burning is the same as other legal forms of symbolic speech, such as sit-ins and wearing armbands. After this case, several laws and statutes had been brought up to make desecrating the flag a federal crime; but

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

Many feel that the American flag amendment is a special case. Supreme Court Chief William Rehnquist claimed it was

The desecration of the flag has been the topic of debate for many years amongst Judicial Court Justices. For years dating back to 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court

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

Concerning the outcome of Texas v. Johnson, Justice William Brennan delivered the opinion of the court: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Flag burning may be offensive to loyal Americans, but it is not threatening enough by itself to justify punishment. Brennan also stated that "we do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." In Johnson’s case, the Supreme Court valued constitutional principles rather than patriotic preferences.

In Texas v. Johnson a majority of the Supreme Court considered for the first time whether the First Amendment protects desecration of the United States flag as a form of symbolic speech. A sharply divided Court had previously dealt with symbolic speech cases that involved alleged misuses of the flag. While "the Court had ruled in favor of the defendants in those cases (Street v. New York, 1969; Smith v. Goguen, 1974; Spence v. Washington, 1974), it had done so on narrow grounds, refusing to confront the ultimate question status of flag desecration" (Downs 868). The court ruled in favor of Johnson (5-4), believing that "there was no evidence that Johnson's expression threatened an imminent disturbance of the peace, and that the statute's protection of the integrity of the flag as a symbol was improperly directed at the communicative message entailed in flag burning" (Downs 868). Justice Brennan concluded by saying, "We do not consecrate the flag by punishing it's desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents" (Witt 409). Reacting to this ruling, the Untied State's Congress sought to pass legislation that would overturn it. The Flag Protection Amendment was introduced and then voted down, but then the Flag Protection Act was passed in both houses. President Bush allowed this act to pass without his signature, "an expression

Frederick Douglass once said, “No man can be truly free whose liberty is dependent upon the thought, feeling and action of others, and who has himself no means in his own hands for guarding, protecting, defending and maintaining that liberty.” Throughout the history of America his words have proven true seeing that those of African descent have been faced with a tremendous amount of prejudice. Whether that be in terms of the basic rights vital to African americans, or the freedom of expression that should be allotted to every human being. They were subjected to endless economic and social prejudice. While at the same time being refused the decencies all American citizen deserved. But most importantly, African Americans were denied the right to decide how their country was controlled and in turn their “liberty”. These atrocities prove that the reform introduced during the Reconstruction era did little to resolve the problems plaguing African Americans or improve their quality of life.

William E. Gladstone states” Justice delayed is justice denied.” Meaning when justice is not served in a timely manner, it means you receive any justice at all. In the” I have dream” speech by Martin Luther King Jr. he talks about the injustice people of color were receiving in the 1940s-60s. “Cairo: My city or Revolution” by Ahdaf Soueif tells of a family who lives under the rule of a dictator. And the story “Lolita in Tehran” by Azar Nafisi and talks about a woman in Tehran being discriminated against because of her gender. All of these texts give us instances where people were being denied freedom. I believe that freedom should be demanded rather than being given.

The Supreme Court has looked over many cases, all making life changes and some making no difference in the world. The case Texas vs. Johnson uproared so many political arguments, amendment arguments, and even country disputes. This case was and is still so important because it brought of the basis of the government's beliefs against an individual. The government and many military personales found it offensive, but the key to liberty is free

To what extent did Dred Scott decision was examined from an incorrect view of the judicial role and viewed as morally incorrect? Due to Chief Justice Taney’s unacceptable error of not reviewing the case through law, the decision led the nation split into two and eventually caused in American Civil War. In this investigation, Chief Justice Taney, who held the majority of votes, actions and behaviors prior of the case will be evaluated for its impact upon a simple freedom case. This investigation will also focus on three questions that Justice Taney claimed after reviewing the case and how it was or was not constitutional. Research will be done in books about Dred Scott’s background and what he has done throughout his life, a reference

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.

The Courts should strictly interpret the U.S Constitution to prevent personal judgement and opinions from changing a fair decision. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the board of education of the West Virginia Legislature attempted to make the pledge of allegiance as a mandatory activities in public schools and refusal to participate will be dealt with in some way. Two Jehovah's Witnesses, who are not allowed to pledge to symbols according to their beliefs, were expelled for not saluting the flag. The decision of the Supreme Court was “constructed” based on the first amendment that states that promises no restriction on free exercise of religion and therefore the mandatory salute was banned. If the courts were

In the Texas v. Majority court case, the theme is tolerance is the driving force of the short read. The Supreme Court argued that we must be tolerant of Gregory Lee Johnson for his desecration of the American Flag as it is freedom of speech and would be unconstitutional to imprison him for exercising his first amendment freedoms. Another argument states that Johnson should have been tolerant of the United

The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." The court also stated that, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms," the court explained, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore, that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol when it cannot mandate the status or feeling the symbol purports to represent." The Supreme Court found that the state's first interest of preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was not made. The state had not shown that the flag was in danger of being stripped of its symbolic value, the Texas court also decided that flag's special status was not endangered by Johnson's actions.