Flag Desecration Pros And Cons

Gregory Lee Johnson, in 1984, burned an American flag in front of the Dallas City Hall as protest against Reagan administration policies. He was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statue that did not allow the desecration of a venerated object, if his action made others angry. Soon after, he was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was then sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and the case went to the Supreme Court. Johnson appealed and argued that his actions were “symbolic speech” protected by the first amendment. The Court made note that freedom of speech protects actions that society my find very offensive, but the anger of others is not justification for

suppressing free speech. In the Texas Penal Code Ann. 42.09 it says: A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates: a public monument, a place of worship or burial, or a state or national flag.
Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy, joined Brennan, who delivered the opinion of the court.

Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Rehnquist filed a dissenting opinion, in which White and O'Connor joined. Stevens filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Stevens argued that the flag's unique status as a symbol of national unity outweighed "symbolic speech" concerns, and thus, the government could lawfully prohibit flag burning.
Most of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the first amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech.
Most also noted that the Texas law discrimination upon viewpoint, although the law punished actions, such as the burning of a flag, that could make the anger rise in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon

viewpoint.
This case ended up in battle lined being drawn between both those in Congress who wanted to amend the Constitution to allow restraints on flag desecration and those who supported new legislation rather than constitutional amendment. The Court suggests that a prohibition against flag desecration is not content-neutral, because this form of symbolic speech is only used by persons who are critical of the flag or the idea s it represents. This case also helps in that a Justice knows how another case’s result should turn out to be. Since the desecration of a flag is legal, because a person can have a different opinion of the flag as a symbol.