September 6, 2011
Texas v. Johnson-1989
Posted by tstritt under 3, Case Briefs | Tags: 5-to-4, burning, ethics, flag, flag burning, law, Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson |[2] Comments
Outside the 1984 Republican National Convention, protesters gathered to voice their disproval for the current presidential administration. Mr. Johnson was in attendance as a protester of President Reagan, in his first term, and also a number of Dallas based companies. During a march outside the convention, Johnson burned a United States flag as an act of protest. No one was hurt due to the political statement that Johnson made and it was determined that no one was even threatened of being hurt.
It was noted that a few witnesses, an exact number was not given, were offended by Johnson’s act. Johnson was then convicted of desecration of a venerated object, which was in violation of a Texas statute. Venerated means to regard or treat with reverence.
A Texas court of appeals approved the notion that Johnson was guilty of violating the Texas statute. Johnson was then sentenced to one year in prison and was given a fine of $2,000. Johnson appealed the decision to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and it was decided that his case would be seen.
The Court of Criminal appeals over-turned the decision of the lower court, stating that what Johnson had done was protected by the First Amendment. They found his actions as protected content of free speech.
The Court also determined that the act of flag burning in Johnson’s case would not have caused a major disturbance of the peace, and therefore did not qualify as a potential security breech, which was necessary to meet the state goal. The Court decided that the Government cannot assume that every controversial idea will cause a riot.
The state of Texas asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and their decision was handed down in 1989.
A five-justice majority wrote the defendant’s act of burning a U.S. flag was protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution. The final result was a 5-to-4 slight majority decision.
The verdict was decided because the court felt that Government cannot limit the spoken or non-spoken expression of ideas solely because society finds the idea upsetting, even when the U.S. flag is involved.
The case was brought to court on the grounds of determining whether flag burning was protected as an act of free speech and if the U.S. flag was in a unique and separate category because of its meaning and venerated status.
Questions:
- What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision?
- How do you react to this statement: “Burning the U.S. flag is desecrating the symbol of free speech?”
- Do you feel the United States flag needs to be protected from desecration and should be placed in a separate category because of its venerated status and meaning to people?
- Do you feel this case is at all similar to the uproar that came about after Jimi Hendrix played his own version of the National Anthem at Woodstock?
- What potential problems can arise from the Texas V. Johnson decision?
2 thoughts on “Texas v. Johnson-1989”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:20 pm
1.The significance of the decision by the High Court is that it reaffirms that unpopular speech (as long as it does not meet the three criteria set forth by the court in Near v Minn [1931])is still protected by the First Amendment.
2.I think that this is a hypocritical statement. Living in a truly free country is going to mean hearing and seeing things that you do not agree with.
3.I do not feel like the US flag needs to be protected from desecration. If burning the US flag offends you, then don’t go where you expect people to be doing this. If the US flag did hold a separate status as a symbol of freedom, protected from desecration, then I ask what constitutes an American flag? Do napkins, t-shirts, and automobiles that have an American flag printed on them count as flags? Why or why not?
4.I don’t feel like these two situations are all that similar. People who said that Hendrix was being anti-patriotic were just ill-informed about his life. Jimi Hendrix was a former service member who had served his country in Vietnam before returning home to find fame as a guitar god. Therefore, it stands to reason that Hendrix intended nothing but love and respect for his country with his rendition of the national anthem.
5.I don’t necessarily see any, because I agree with the decision of the Court.
September 9th, 2011 at 10:50 am
By the way I think of it as is that this was a huge case in the scheme of America. Someone burning the American flag wasn’t charged because of the 1st Amendment. I believe that when the 1st Amendment was created it wasn’t structured for something this extreme with our own country. However I do agree with the ruling because he didn’t hurt anybody with his protest, he didn’t even threat anyone. He was upset and wanted to send a message, even when the message was burning his own country’s flag.