The case of Texas vs. Johnson became of in 1984 when Gregory Lee Johnson, publicly burned an American flag as political protest to the Reagan administration. In the initial case, the state court ruled that Johnson was guilty and in fact violated a Texas law that banned flag desecration. However, the because of the constitutional nature of the case, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and sent the case to the Supreme Court.
The fundamental constitution question was whether or not such disagreeable acts were protected under the first amendment. 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, …show more content…
However, due to this case flag burning has been protected as freedom of speech since 1984. The actions occurred at the end of a political rally. "Taking offense" at political action is not, the Court ruled, sufficient reason to suppress speech or expression (Pearson).The Senate has rejected a proposal for amending the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to ban burning or desecrating the American flag.
According to a Gallup Poll and USA today, the majority of Americans support a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and state governments to make it illegal to burn the Americans flag. Sixty-seven republicans felt that the need to give the congress the say whether or not to outlaw flag burning, where as it was only 49% of
The fundamental constitution question was whether or not such disagreeable acts were protected under the first amendment. 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, …show more content…
However, due to this case flag burning has been protected as freedom of speech since 1984. The actions occurred at the end of a political rally. "Taking offense" at political action is not, the Court ruled, sufficient reason to suppress speech or expression (Pearson).The Senate has rejected a proposal for amending the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress to ban burning or desecrating the American flag.
According to a Gallup Poll and USA today, the majority of Americans support a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and state governments to make it illegal to burn the Americans flag. Sixty-seven republicans felt that the need to give the congress the say whether or not to outlaw flag burning, where as it was only 49% of