Texas v. Johnson Essay

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

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.

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.

for Texas v. Johnson, Chief Justice Rehnquist explains that many Americans regard the flag “with an

For instance, in the two passages Texas v. Johnson and American Flag Stands for Tolerance, the hardship of Gregory Lee Johnson is explained. He burned an American Flag as a way of expressing his opinion. First Amendment protects the people’s freedom of

These acts of conduct are done to express and idea and are therefore considered free speech. At the time of Johnson’s burning of the flag he was clearly expressing elements of communication. At trial, Johnson stated that the reason for his flag burning: “The flag was burned as Ronal Regan was being re-nominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn’t have been made at that time.” The Supreme Court decided that this action was an expression of an idea and not an act of aggression to provoke violence. Therefore since it was an act of speech, Johnson was protected by the First Amendment and his conviction was in violation of the Constitution. The dissenting members of the court said that the flag is a sacred part of America. Congress set forth laws on the specific design and construction of the flag. This shows the reverence and respect that should be shown to the flag. They also wrote that in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court stated: “it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all

In response to the decision made in Texas v. Johnson, Congress enacted the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Act, this time focused not on simply prohibiting the desecration of a flag, but of protecting the entire physical integrity of a flag. The Act did, however allow for the proper disposal of old, torn, worn, or soiled flags. Congress did this with the purpose of removing language that the courts might find made the statute a statute that aimed to suppress certain kinds of expression. They also tried to challenge the Court and prior rulings to prohibit the burning and desecration of American flags. After Congress passed this law, many burned flags in protest.

My first reason why Johnson is extending his freedom of speech is that he burnt the flag and people fought for our freedom and that flag symbolizes freedom to many

A 1931 Supreme Court case, Stromberg v. California, set the first precedent for the use of a flag in an act of symbolic speech under the First Amendment, when the Court struck down a California law that banned the flying of a red flag to protest against the government. More than five decades later, Congress passed Flag Protection Act in 1968. The Act was response to the Vietnam protests of the unfavorable Vietnam war. Protesters started the tradition of desecrating the flag, including burning the flag. For more than 20 years, the lower court upheld the act and the Supreme Court denied

The suit raised two formidable constitutional questions. First, Texas had brought suit directly in the Supreme Court. Under the Constitution, only a state may do this. These were the days of Reconstruction, and Texas had a military

Demonstrators marched through the streets, chanting slogans, and held protest outside the offices of several corporations. The purpose of the demonstration was to protest policies of the Regan Administration and of certain corporations based in Dallas. In a political demonstration during the Republican National Convention in Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, the demonstrators shouted, “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” No one was hurt but some witnesses said they were offended. One witness picked up the flag’s charred remains and buried them in his backyard. Johnson was charged and convicted with the desecration of a venerated object, in violation

Does American Flag discriminate other people why or why not? On page three line two “A person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies by burning the American flag. The next piece of evidence, On page two the caption says Dallas police arrest Gregory Lee Johnson for burning an American flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention. Gregory Lee Johnson started a court case cause he burned an American flag. So he was treated for burning the American flag.

Once the appeal made its way to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals the court overturned his conviction, stating that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because his actions would be considered as symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment: "Given the context of an organized demonstration, speeches, slogans, and the distribution of literature, anyone who observed appellant's act would have understood the message that appellant intended to convey. The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly `speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." in order to justify Johnson conviction of engaging in symbolic speech, the state addressed two interests:”preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and preventing breaches of the peace”. A decision was made by The Court of Criminal Appeals that neither interest supported his conviction. The court acknowledged that their decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943) suggested that continuing further interest would be considered impermissible. "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms," the court also explains that "a government

The demonstration, which involved a lot of people, was against the Reagan administration’s policies. Spectators watching the protest were deeply offended by Johnson’s actions. As a result, the state of Texas sued Johnson. In this case, the justices had to decided if ruining an american flag, in any way, is a form of free speech that is protected by the first amendment in the Constitution. In a five person to four person vote, the Supreme Court decided that Johnson was protected by the first amendment. They decided that burning an american flag is considered to be an political action, which expresses the person’s political beliefs. This ruling created the idea that just because the public were offended by the action, there is no reason why to prohibit the

The stories Texas vs Johnson and American Flag Stands for Tolerance are completely different to each other when it comes to tone. Today you will see how they were different how they are different.