Texas Vs Johnson Pros And Cons

Texas v. Johnson (1989) centers around the issue of whether burning the American flag should be considered expressive conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of the desecration of a venerated object when he burned a flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in protest of President Ronald Reagan's policies. There was a Texas statute in place which prohibited the intentional desecration of a venerated object, considered to be public monuments, places of worship or burial, and state or national flags. In a five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment handed down by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, stating that flag burning was symbolic speech protected under the

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

He reasons the government can outlaw the destruction of one of the nation's symbols because of the flag's "unique status as a symbol of national unity, [which outweighs]" concerns over symbolic speech. There is no question that the American flag "evok[es] emotional expressions of national identification, allegiance, and self-sacrifice" in American citizens. However, while I agree with Stevens that the principles of liberty and equality are principles worth defending and fighting for, I do not agree that the destruction of the flag should be prohibited. Johnson was protesting the country's policies and to convict him for this expression of opinion would be to turn away from the very principles the United States is supposed to represent as was laid out in the First