Johnson V. Texas Supreme Court Case Study

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.

“American Flag Stands for Tolerance”, an article based on the Johnson case, focuses on “a person has a right to express disagreement with governmental policies”(line2). The author of this article focused on the meaning of freedom. In line 65, the author states, “the flag stands for free expression of ideas...The ultimate irony would have been to punish views expressed by burning the flag that stands for the right to those expressions”, meaning it would be pointless to punish those who petulantly burned the flag as an expression of their thoughts, when they have the freedom to express their

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

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,

The first amendment, as written in the constitution, forbids the abridgement of “speech”, but we have not taken upon the writing that it spreads past spoken and written. Any citizen has the wright to use his or her form of “speech” in his or way of choosing. These forms can be in words, or written down on paper. These ways of speech can also be used in actions, and these actions can express an idea of language as well. When Johnson decided to burn the American flag, he was using his form of speech to get his point across to the new president. When the state came after him, they were in the wrong because of this amendment. Because of this, it was

The United States is well-known for its principles of freedom and democracy, which is demonstrated through the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Thus, American citizens can openly discuss political matters; criticize the President and his Cabinet on television, radio talk show or in the newspaper; or publicly protest against the government tax policy. However, Free Speech protection becomes debatable when some American citizens burn the nation’s flag to express their disagreement to the government. The act of burning the American Flag should be constitutionally protected under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause because the act is a symbolic expression that communicates an individual’s idea or opinion about his nation; and that

The Supreme Court’s stance on flag burning has remained the same since. Nevertheless, thirty years after United States v. Eichman, there is still controversy over whether or not it should be legal. A recent example of the present discussion on flag burning is a tweet made by President Donald Trump in 2016: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!” However, without a reason to change the law besides personal opinion, the Supreme Court is not likely to reverse their decision and make flag burning

Case: During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while

A man by the name of Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas Law. He burned the flag rather than uttering insulting words, which would have been allowed under the first amendment. Burning a flag, according to Goldstein, is the preferred means of disposing of a flag "when it is such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display."

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.

Johnson Majority Opinion” the supreme court made the decision that everyone is entitled to be themselves, to have their own opinion, and to show how they feel through actions that don't put anyone or anything to harm. On lines (1-2) states “We decline, therefore, to create for the flag an exception to the joust of princes protected by the First Amendment.” The quote relates to this piece of text evidence because no matter who you are or what you say the First Amendment protects you from being criminally punished for showing who you are. In this case, the flag was burned to show feelings. People caused riots because of it but eventually the commotion stopped. The case was no longer talked about often as a problem but more as something to learn from. On lines (7-12) it states “National Unity… Under our constitution, compulsion as here employed as a permissible means for its achievement.” This piece of text evidence relates to the quote by saying people of the United States do not need to have national pride and it is okay that one person has it and another person doesn't. People should be willing to accept anyone who is different or feels different about something. The First Amendment protects people's rights to be who they want and people have to accept that. No one in the world is exactly the same and we should be willing to look past the differences in

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

Johnson was not exercising his right to free speech, because if he was there are less offending ways to do it. When you exercise your right to free speech there’s a thing called the “offensive principle” which is one of the limits to exercising your right to free speech. Freedom of speech is the right to show your opinions and ideas without the fear of governments censorship.