The fundamental constitution question that arose and the reason it was sent to the supreme court was regarding whether or not such disagreeable forms of expression were protected under the 1st amendment. The 1st Amendment was constructed to protect unpopular speech and opinions, like flag burning. For this reason, it is important to our freedoms to be able to express our views in …show more content…
The act was judged to be protected under the 1st amendment. The decision stated that the Court viewed Johnson's actions as political speech rather than vandalism. Justice Brennan concurred with the decision as he stated that "although the state has a legitimate interest in encouraging proper treatment of the flag, it may not foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting expressive conduct…and by criminally punishing a person for burning the flag as a means of political protest…. If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." (Pearson). Justice John Paul Stevens, conversely, dissented with this, as he believed that if we allow the desecration of the flag, it’s value as a national symbol would tarnish. Due to the overwhelming agreement with Justice Stevens and his reasoning, the debate has since resurfaced in modern day politics more then three decades