More Subjects
Sohaib Hayat
Instructor Name
Course Number
Date
Texas V. Johnson
The case Texas v. Johnson resulted in a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that burning of Flag of United States is protected by the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"eVTwtPHx","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Texas v. Johnson\\uc0\\u8221{})","plainCitation":"(“Texas v. Johnson”)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":538,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/6D4TFLIL"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/6D4TFLIL"],"itemData":{"id":538,"type":"webpage","abstract":"A case in which the Court held that burning the American Flag is protected free speech under the First Amendment.","container-title":"Oyez","language":"en","title":"Texas v. Johnson","URL":"https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,9]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Texas v. Johnson”).
Facts
In August 1984, the Republican National Convention was organized in Dallas to elect President Ronald Reagan as competitor for 1984’s presidential election. There was also a group present there to protest against policies introduced by Reagan Administration and other local corporations. Gregory Lee Johnson was one of the participants of the protesting group. Near the end of the protest, he soaked an American flag, which he got from another protestor, in kerosene oil. In front of Dallas City Hall, he ignited it. As the flag burnt, protestors started shouting slogans including “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you”.
This conduct did not injure anyone physically, but witnessing the incident created a wave of outrage among many. The society viewed it as dishonoring the flag. Johnson was then arrested for vandalizing a respected object according to Texas’ State Law, under section 42.09(a)(3). Next, he was ruled guilty, fined $20,000 and sentenced to imprisonment for a year ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"TuZwmCak","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson\\uc0\\u8221{})","plainCitation":"(“Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson”)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":536,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/LASB3NHP"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/LASB3NHP"],"itemData":{"id":536,"type":"webpage","abstract":"Facts","container-title":"United States Courts","language":"en","title":"Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson","URL":"https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,9]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson”). Two years later, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas approved the conviction. Though, Johnson claimed that his act was practice of free speech and is safeguarded by the First Amendment. His case was accepted by the Supreme Court for review. In March 1989, the oral arguments were heard. Reversal orders were demanded by the Supreme Court as the lower courts failed to address if the ruling of conviction of Johnson was constitutional or not. Thus, the certiorari was granted by the Supreme Court of U.S.
Constitutional Question
This case is known to be a breakthrough Supreme Court case, which was decided by the Rehnquist Court in 1989. The case revolved around a question for the Court that whether the vandalism of an American flag can be considered as a form of speech and if it was protected by the right to free speech as stated in First Amendment. ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"QPPOzEcN","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(\\uc0\\u8220{}Texas v. Johnson\\uc0\\u8221{})","plainCitation":"(“Texas v. Johnson”)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":542,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/DQIECVEY"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/DQIECVEY"],"itemData":{"id":542,"type":"post-weblog","abstract":"Texas v. Johnson was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in the year 1988 by the Rehnquist Court. The case attempted to resolve the question of whether the desecration of an American flag was a form of speech that was…","container-title":"Crime Museum","language":"en-US","title":"Texas v. Johnson","URL":"https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/criminal-law/texas-v-johnson/","accessed":{"date-parts":[["2019",12,9]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (“Texas v. Johnson”). According to First Amendment of US Constitution, every citizen has rights related to religion, representation and demonstration, assembly and petition. The Amendment prohibits the Congress from limiting rights to practice religion or promote a religion over another. It allows the citizens to speak freely, while forbidding Congress from taking control of press. In addition to this, the Amendment protects the rights of an individual to gather peacefully and appeal to the Government.
Discussion
The case remained controversial among many for a long time. The State agreed that the conduct was expressive. The argument of Johnson seems more convincing then the base of case built against him. The protest was of political nature and against the policies of Reagan. The purpose of demonstration was to express his views and not to dishonor the flag. His act of burning the flag represented his views, allowing him to resort to the First Amendment. As the incident took place at the end of a demonstration and on same time as the Republican National Convention, it shows that explicit action’s political nature is deliberate and insignificantly obvious. The restraint on political expression of Johnson is based on the views as the Texas statute does not protect physical integrity of the flag. However, it does protect flag from being abused intentionally which can cause grave offense to society. But this arises the question whether the Government has authority to forbid the oral or nonverbal expressions just because other people disagree or are offended by the ideas.
Court Ruling
U.S. Supreme Court believed that in this situation burning of American Flag was legally permissible as it can be defended by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The majority, i.e. 5 out of 9 judges, stated that actions of Johnson were categorized as conduct of expression and were of peculiar political nature. The Court stated that if a society disagrees or is offended by an action which expresses views of an individual, this cannot justify the ban over the freedom of speech. The Court explicitly held that it is not legally justified for an official to define symbols as specific representation of ideas. It is noted that the solid foundation of First Amendment is the right to express freely and, in this regard, the government cannot suppress the expression only because the society does not agree to it.
Reasoning
The greater number of the Judges agreed to Johnson’s claim that his act of setting flag on fire is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They were of the opinion that this act should be viewed as Symbolic speech and not as disrespect to the flag. They all agreed that the society might be offended by the freedom of speech of on individual or a party based on their own beliefs and customs. However, merely because the society finds an act offensive, it cannot justify the repression of free speech.
Majority of court was of the opinion that any government cannot show prejudice merely based on a point of view. They noted that the State Law of Texas exhibited discrimination based on perception as law punishes one for burning a flag as part of demonstration but does not prosecute one for burning or burying a torn flag.
Conclusion
In consistence with the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal reversed the sentence. Johnson was not punished for setting the flag on fire under the given conditions. As burning of flag did not cause a serious harm, the conviction of Johnson does not align with the goal of State to prevent breach of peace ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"TWWkJLUC","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Brennan)","plainCitation":"(Brennan)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":546,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/CZZWPICB"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/CZZWPICB"],"itemData":{"id":546,"type":"article-journal","container-title":"In190 Supreme Court Reporter","page":"2538","title":"Texas v. Johnson","author":[{"family":"Brennan","given":"Justice"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1989"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Brennan).
It is concluded that the freedom of speech and right to express personal views are of significant importance, and under any given condition no government can suppress the rights of people to express themselves.
Works Cited
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Brennan, Justice. “Texas v. Johnson.” In190 Supreme Court Reporter, 1989, p. 2538.
“Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson.” United States Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson. Accessed 9 Dec. 2019.
“Texas v. Johnson.” Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-155. Accessed 9 Dec. 2019.
“Texas v. Johnson”---. Crime Museum, https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/criminal-law/texas-v-johnson/. Accessed 9 Dec. 2019.
More Subjects
Join our mailing list
© All Rights Reserved 2024