Introductory paragraph “The flag is one of the most recognizable symbol of the United States.” During the case of Johnson vs. Texas, I believe that Johnson was exercising his rights to free speech but I truly think that he should have done it somewhere else then a public square, someone could have gotten hurt by the flames of the burning flag, or Johnson could have gotten hurt because he was burning the flag around people who love the United States flag. I agree with the fact that Johnson was sentenced to 1 year in jail, he burned the Flag in Texas and in Texas they have a desecration law of violating the flag. From my own point of view, I think Johnson wasn’t exercising his rights to free speech but, he did it in the most absolutely
“He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others” (“Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson). Johnson did exactly this, and he angered many witnesses. Congress passed a law similar to the one taking effect in this case. “In 1968, Congress approved the Federal Flag Desecration Law after a Vietnam War protest. The law made it illegal to “knowingly” cast “contempt” upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it” (Bomboy).
According to Robert T. Schatz and Howard Lavine, "the power of national symbols to rouse impassioned emotion and behavior has been noted by scholars from a variety of disciplines." It is not surprising that those who are passionate about the patriotism that comes along with a display of the American flag would be offended by such a blatantly disrespectful action against the flag. However, just because something is considered offensive does not necessarily mean it should be prohibited by
Although nobody was physically harmed, the flag burning offended many witnesses. As a result, “Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances.” This reflects judicial restraint because the United States v. Eichman Court decision faithfully applied the precedent and honored the prior Court decision from the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case.
The first case of the day that was heard by the Supreme Court on December 13th was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, led a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas to protest Ronald Reagan’s reelection. During this protest, Mr. Johnson soaked an American flag in kerosene and proceed to burn it. Mr. Johnson was then arrested and charged for violating the Texas state law that prevented the desecration of a venerated object. The proceedings began with statements from the petitioners who claimed that precedent cases such as US v. O’Brien (1968), which deemed that the burning of draft cards was an invalid form of free speech, and Boos v. Barry (1988), which reinforced
Reasoning: (Brennan, J.) The majority of the Court, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. " A law directed at the communicative nature of conduct must, like a law directed at speech itself, be justified by the substantial showing of need that the First Amendment requires." The majority concluded that the Texas law impermissibly discriminated upon viewpoint.
The Supreme Court decided in favor of Johnson. The Supreme Court believed that Johnson's actions were expressive conduct and there was a purpose to the flag burning. The Supreme Court decided that because this was an expression it is protected under the First Amendment. Image: Oregon Employment Division v. Smith 1990 Constitutional Question: Can a person be denied unemployment benefits when fired because of using illegal drugs in religious ceremonies? Background Information: Smith and a colleague worked at a drug rehabilitation center.
The majority of the case argued it was protected by the First Amendment. In my opinion, even though it is protected under expressive conduct I feel it is wrong to take it out on a symbol of unity, the American Flag. Put aside the fact that people do it to get their point across but their
While the article “Texas v. Johnson (1989)” comments, “burning the flag constitutes a fundamental rejection of the system that protects freedom of speech, and they conclude that such conduct does not merit First Amendment protection.” This comes to show that burning the American Flag could have caused riots and hardships. “Desecrating the an American Flag was a criminal offence in Texas, as it was under federal law and in 48 of the 50 U.S. States.” This quote helps explain why there are so many bad turnouts that could happen because Johnson burned the American
The court sentenced Johnson to one year in prison, and a fine of $2,000. Texas reversed Johnson’s conviction and the U.S. supreme court agreed to hear the case. If Johnson is not guilty, then he was right to his freedom of speech, because he burned the flag to get the laws attention Johnson tried to get the laws attention for what he needed to say, but they didn’t care for what he had to say. The only way to get the laws attention was doing something violent.
The law in Texas at the time banned flag burnings. He was convicted, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. We ruled that Johnson’s right to free speech had been violated. He was expressing symbolic speech. We ruled that even though an opinion is unpopular, doesn’t mean we have the right to restrict his freedom of
Pictures of the accused killer flooded television, social networks and newspapers. The displaying of the killer holding the confederate flag was displayed because of the killer’s hate for the black race. Nine people were killed in the shooting spree. The incident in my opinion was a demonic act because the killer sat and open fire while the congregation prayed. Sadly, only because of nine people dying because of racism, the flag was removed for several southern states.
The freedom of speech supports the freedom to desecrate the flag. It also supports the freedom to hang your flag, and put it anywhere on your property. This includes your body. What does the freedom of speech have to do with desecrating the flag? Desecration sends, a message, no matter what it is.
The burning of the American flag should not be protected by the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of burning the flag in violation of the Texas Law. After a march, he burned the flag in protest during the 1984 Republican National Convention. No one was hurt during this demonstration.
A public Flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law: This act of expression, by burning the flag, is protected by the First Amendment (Hall, 2014). The highest court in the land heard the case Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson and ruled that burning the flag is a protected form of expression under the First Amendment (Hall, 2014). The U.S. Supreme Court expressed its displeasure in coming to this judgment; however, proper interpretation of the law obligated the Justices to reach this decision (Hall, 2014).
