Gregory Johnson Case

Improved Essays
1. Name of Case
Texas v. Johnson 491 U.S. 397, 109 S.CT. 2533 (1989)

2. Facts of Case
Gregory Johnson joined a protest in Dallas, Texas during the 1984 Republican Convention. During the protest Johnson burned a flag as others chanted. Johnson was prosecuted for flag desecration that violated a state statute. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Johnson’s conviction, and held that flag burning was an expression of speech. Texas appealed to the Supreme Court (O’Brien 702).

3. Questions of the Court
Is flag burning protected by the First Amendment?

4. Holding
Yes. The decision was 5-4 in favor of Gregory Johnson

5. Opinions of the Court
Justice Brennan delivered the Opinion of the Court. Gregory Johnson was prosecuted for burning
…show more content…
Barry (1988) reminds the Court that this violation is content based. Boos denied a law that banned offensive signs five hundred feet from an embassy. The government cannot censor content it does not like. Johnson was arrested because the content of his expression was disliked. Texas does not wish to have the flag as a symbol of anything. The flag is supposed to be a symbol of “nationhood” and “unity” (O’Brien 705). In Texas, treats the flag poorly than they are violating the statute. Government may not ban expression because it may be offensive. The First Amendment was ratified for that reason. In Street v. New York (1969) the Court ruled a person cannot be punished for yelling hateful words at the flag. No precedent exists to ban Johnson’s actions. Texas attempted to distinguish between offensive flag behavior and destruction of the flag. Nowhere in the Constitution or case law is a special exception made for the American Flag. The best way to prevent flag burning is convince people like Johnson that it is wrong. Johnson did not disrupt the peace, and protecting the flags symbolism does not justify a conviction (O’Brien …show more content…
For 200 years the flag has been a special emblem of the United States. The flag is special enough to constitute a ban on burning. In 1931 the “star spangle banner” became the national anthem. In 1949, Flag Day was created on June 14th. Congress recognized the pledge of allegiance. Until 1967, states had been in charge of creating statutes. Now, Title 18 U.S.C punishes flag desecration. Congress also gave multiple rules for the style of flag and location of the flags placement. All states but Alaska and Wyoming have statutes banning flag burning. The flag does not symbolize anyone political parties view. The flag is held sacred by millions of Americans. The First Amendment does not annul 48 states statutes and an Act of Congress banning flag burning. Flag burning is not a crucial part of expressing any ideas. Johnson could have disavowed the flag or burned it in private. Johnson was able to shout, “Ronald Reagan, killer of the hour, perfect example of U.S. power,” and “red white and blue we spit on you…” (O’Brien 708). None of those statements got Johnson arrested. Burning the flag is what lead to Johnson’s arrest. Flag burning is antagonistic and not expressive (O’Brien 707-708).

Justice Stevens also dissented. The Court is simply wrong is stating Johnson’s actions fall under the First Amendment. Had Johnson spray painted or desecrated the Lincoln Memorial there would be no doubt the government

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Not all war veterans believe an amendment should be passed, either. When Congress was attempting to get a two-thirds majority vote for passing the amendment, two war veterans, John Glenn of Ohio, and Bob Kerrey, a Medal of Honor recipient, rejected the amendment. They stated that flag burners are no threat to the "fabric of America" (Pierce). This explains that not all war veterans believe that the flag should be protected by law, as they believe that the flag burners are irrelevant to the significance of the flag and pose no…

    • 2389 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Since no declaration of war exists for these actions they are ergo unconstitutional. In Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; (“Bill of Rights”)” is granted to Congress whilst no power mentioning war is granted to the Executive Branch. As a result, the Executive Branch is overstepping their boundaries through their unconstitutional…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Desecration

    • 941 Words
    • 4 Pages

    If our Nations flag is a symbol of freedom then we must protect it, even if it is from Americans. The First Amendment to the US Constitution starts with, “Congress shall make no law respecting … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances,” (Amendment). This allows American citizens to express their dissatisfaction with our government or polices without being punished as long as citizens do not break any laws. The act of desecration, either by burning, walking on, tearing up or even hanging upside down, is a means of expressing ones dissatisfaction. If the government is able to pass a law that prohibits the ability to desecrate the American flag this could open a Pandora’s Box of trouble.…

    • 941 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Changing the law would be unconstitutional since freedom of speech is under amendment one and changing the Bill of Rights on its own is not possible. “In particular, the majority noted that the Texas law discriminated upon viewpoint, i.e., although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon…

    • 859 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This includes Twitter censoring alt-right groups or Reddit shutting off racist sub reddits. And being neither a Nazi nor a white supremacist, I’m okay with that. But it’s not my perspective that actually matters. Because in reality, I have the power to ignore the “message board villains”, but that never translates in my power to silence them completely. According to our own First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"".…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As a result, the Courts decision stated that the government cannot prosecute an individual for burning a United States flag because flag burning was a form of expression protected under the First Amendment. Justice William Brennan rejected the government’s argument that the law protects the flag’s integrity as a symbol of the nation and certain national…

    • 836 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    United States V. Eichman was very different because unlike the Texas law in Johnson’s case the federal law does not target expressive conduct on the basis of the content of the message. 6. Justice William Brennan stated, “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” I completely agree with Justice Brennan’s thoughts on how the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violates an individual first amendment right because of how others feel. The courts believed that the federal law goes well beyond this by “criminally prescribing expressive conduct because of its likely communicative…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The 1st Amendment was constructed to protect unpopular speech such as flag burning, hence why it is important to our freedoms. While the act may be disagreeable, it is not illegal and shouldn’t be treated as such. Johnson went on to state that his act was meant to be a political statement not that of vandalism or terrorism. In end the end, if one can not express their political views and resentment to the current political system, then how can their ever be debate. When the case reached the Supreme court,…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Are Atomic Bombs Necessary

    • 1559 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Again this shows how the atomic bomb was against international law. So not only unnecessary but also an offense deserving of high punishment for the nation that is at fault. Additionally, the bomb wasn’t ever made to be an offensive weapon. It was initially created to deter Germany. The use of the bomb directly went against the will of its creators therefore, should never been allowed to have been dropped upon Japan.…

    • 1559 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Saver Act Case Study

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In Brandenburg, The Syndicalism statute banned people from expressing their violent views about minorities (O’Brien 483). Advocacy of unpopular positions and forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment. Pennsylvania’s police powers also do not apply in this case because Mr. Dime’s statements were not threatening in any way. There truly is no justification for Mr. Dime’s prosecution. The Court reverses the ruling of the Pennsylvania State Supreme…

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays