The Case Texas V. Johnson

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.

Almost two months later after the arrest, the arguments were presented to the three-judge panel of the Texas District Court of Appeals. The discussion was on both issues raised: the equal protection and right to privacy. John Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy ruled in the favour of appellants. They found that they law was in violation of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitutions which prohibited any discrimination based on

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.

It’s almost the end of 2016 and we still experience discriminative trouble. We are all different but should accept others differences. After reading “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?”, by Etgar Keret, “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion”, by William J. Brennan, and “American Flag Stands for Tolerance”, by Ronald J. Alle, I have found fluent differences in the people explored and the way the people accepted others. In “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion” the people of Texas are having a hard time accepting the fact that Johnson had burned a flag. In “American Flag Stands for Tolerance” the writer states that burning the flag wasn’t illegal and should accept those who express what they believe, even if you don’t agree with them. In the story “What, of This

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

The tones of the Texas vs Johnson and The American Flag Stands For Tolerance have opposite tones because of the context of both documents.

The court said the government cannot "carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . .” The court also said that the flag burning did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace. After this happened, Texas asked the Supreme Court to look at their situation and Johnson’s case.

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 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.

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.

In addition to violating one's rights of freedom of expression, the no-flag burning amendment gives government the power to decide what American actions are and are

As humans have to learn how to tolerate others diversity. It is important to accept others no matter how crazy it may sound to you. The lottery was about a small village that had a certain way of things and did the “lottery” every year, meaning you would pieces of paper and sorry not sorry but if you had a dot you were gonna get stoned by your friends and family and people you knew on a personal level. Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion is about how people are getting kinda defensive about how others treat the flag. The Wife’s Story is about a family whom in the beginning we are lead to believe they are just a normal family but we soon realize they're not so normal after all. “The lottery”, “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion,” both support

In a more recent case, Texas v. Johnson in 1989, the state of Texas placed a one-year jail sentence and a fine on Gregory Johnson, who was arrested for burning a flag outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas. The Supreme Court reversed this sentence by a five to four majority (Williams n. pag.). Justice William Brennan summarized the majority opinion when he stated that "we do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so, we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents" (qtd. in O'Brien n. pag.). In general, the more liberal justices found Johnson's act to be protected by the First Amendment, while the more conservative voted in favor of Texas, a split that seems to be mirrored in Congress and the public. Both of these cases used the First Amendment to argue that desecrating the flag is a form of protest, which cannot be lawfully banned under the Bill of Rights.

 In a 1943 landmark Supreme Court case, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, "The freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much" (qtd. in Jacoby el al. 20). This concept can be applied in the debate on whether to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. When one considers the Constitution and the symbolic meaning of the United States flag, he or she can see that this is