A Good Example Of Mr. Johnson's First Amendment Rights

In 1989 the United States Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag was a form of symbolic speech and therefore was protected by the United States Constitution. What would happen if they took away the right of freedom of speech? How would people express their feelings and emotions towards the government? Many people would feel as though the government was attacking the basis of one of our nation's strongest beliefs. Many would argue over this situation. Protestors would raise all sorts of questions. What is a free nation that does not allow political disagreement? What is a free nation that will not allow itself to be spoken out against? What is a free nation that wants to punish those who oppose its hypocritical principals?

One of the most important cases in the history of the United States, especially for the freedom of American speech and expression, was Texas v. Johnson. This landmark Supreme Court case allows burning the American flag as grounds of symbolic speech. For the Supreme Court, the question was the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? During the Reagan administration, many were upset due to Reagan’s policies, especially his military buildups and his missile reforms. During the Reagan administration, many protests took place, including arm bands to protest military, and sign waving to protest Reagan’s tax cuts that “favored the wealthy”. When the Republican National

In result to this case, the majority of the court noted that the Texas law discriminated upon the law. They feel that this act might bring up anger in other people and more flag burning. The majority of the court also agreed that Johnson had the right to use that form of symbolic speech because it is protected by the first amendment. They find this act is very offensive, but the society’s outrage alone is not justification for depressing Johnson’s freedom of speech.

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

Outside of the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, many people protested President Ronald Reagan’s policies. Among the protestors was one man named Gregory Lee Johnson. This man was so upset by the policies of the President that he burned an American flag in protest. By doing this, a statute in Texas was violated. This statute prevented the desecration of an American flag if it could possibly anger other people amongst the protest. Johnson was arrested and charged with this violation. He was later tried in court and convicted, but he made an appeal stating that by burning the flag he was expressing his rights of “symbolic speech” which are protected by the first amendment (uscourts.gov). The definition of symbolic speech is the same as a term called “speech plus”. This is a form of expression in which behavior is used by itself or in coordination with written or spoken

With tensions at an all time high and the nation at a potential breaking point, the decision in the Dred Scott Case came as a surprise to both the North and the South. The decision had drastic consequences, southern principles were validated while northern liberties were threatened. Therefore it is not surprising that The New York Herald and The Charleston Mercury had very different view points and reporting styles. The northern newspaper viewed the decision’s impact as having “tremendous consequences,” the article included how the Supreme Court’s ruling dismantled northern states’ rights, threatened their liberty and state constitutions. While the southern newspaper saw the

One Supreme Court member that stands out from the rest would have to be John Marshall. There is no doubt about this because he made the Supreme Court a co-equal branch of government. This means that it was an equal branch to the legislative and the executive. He became a Supreme Court Justice in 1801 and was appointed by John Adams. While holding his position he set three major goals that set precedents and made him the most significant Supreme Court Justice ever. Marshall strengthened the national government, weakened the state government, and strengthened the conditions for business and stabilized the economy. Before John Marshall was the Supreme Court Justice, there were attempts to balance the Court which had failed. His decisions

The principle to the case is burning a U.S. flag in protest was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. In determining the case, the court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment reached non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction. The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of ‘speech,’ but has long recognized that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of 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

In 1984, a protest was held during the Republic National Convention, in Dallas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and a few companies based in Dallas. Gregory Lee Johnson, at the time a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in the protest. When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused an American flag in kerosene and set it on fire. Johnson was charged with violation of Texas law, "intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas." His actions were classified as a class A misdemeanor. Johnson was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas, stating that his actions were protected by “symbolic

The American flag not only stands for pride, freedom, and strength but the colors on the flag have a meaning behind them that all Americans should understand. In a description of the flag on a website dedicated solely to the Flag of the United States of America is states "The colors of the pales (the vertical stripes) are those used in the flag of the United States of America; White signifies purity and innocence, Red, hardiness & valour, and Blue, the color of the Chief (the broad band above the stripes) signifies vigilance, perseverance & justice" (US Flag 2005). The flag was not just thrown together to represent the country but also have a true meaning behind them. The stars and stripes on the flag have both an exact meaning but also have the meaning of

The American flag is one of the most recognizable symbols this country has today. As children, we learn in school to cross our heart with our right hand and recite the pledge of allegiance to the United States of America, while facing the flag, a beloved symbol. As a soldier in the United States Army, I proudly wear a flag as a part of my Army Combat Uniform (ACU). It is worn by soldiers like me to show the love of country, honor and commitment to this great nation. It is cherished by veterans who have fought for this country, and families of the fallen soldiers cherish it because it is

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 the article “Justices divided over N.J. police officer’s First Amendment case” by Robert Barnes, he argued that public employee’s First Amendment should be protected when politics is involved. In this problem, the former detective Jeffrey Heffernan was demoted because of “…his ‘overt’ involvement in a political campaign” (Barnes). In Paterson, New Jersey, the former mayor and the new candidate, Lawrence Spagnola, were running for mayor. Before Heffernan was demoted, he was seen by an officer who saw him picking up a yard sign of Spagnola campaign. Therefore, he was demoted because Heffernan were “involved” in a political campaign. In “Justices divided over N.J. police officer’s First Amendment case”, there are many problem such as debating

Throughout history, Americans have fought hard to gain independence and the freedoms that come with it. However, some choose to test the limitations of those freedoms. For some time, Americans have shown their disgust of the American government by burning flags, and even cutting them up to use as clothing. Although mocking the American government and the flag is disrespectful, revoking the right to do so would be a violation of freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Those who support the no-flag burning amendment argue that the United States flag is a special case. Because it would undermine the constitution and set a dangerous precedent that will make it easier for others enact restrictive amendments to the