Texas vs. Johnson Screenplay Cast: Narrator, Gregory Lee Johnson, The Supreme Court, Johnson’s lawyer, Texas’s prosecutor, Protester 1, Protester 2, Protester 3, Police Officer, Local Court Judge, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals judges. Act I: Narrator: It was August 1984, during the Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas. Here there was a group of protesters against President Reagan’s policies. Gregory Lee Johnson was one of these protesters. Johnson: I hate you, Reagen! We’re not leaving until you’re a better president! Protester 1: You know what would get them to listen? Burning the American flag. Protester 2 steals flag from back of the room Protester 2: Take the flag Gregory, you know what to do. Protester 3: Yeah, do it man! *Gregory …show more content…
Johnson’s lawyer: Your Honor, we have the right to express ourselves in an acceptable manner, even though these actions may or may not be offensive. So, Johnson here was expressing himself to make a point, didn’t he? Johnson: Yes sir, I was protesting and by burning a flag the protesters and I made a clear point. Supreme Court: That’s a good point, Texas. How do you respond to this argument? Texas prosecutor: The flag is a sacred item that has represented us for 200 years, destroying it would be dishonorable to our history. Also our flag is a symbol of equality, unity, freedom and opportunity, destroying these would be destroying these values as well. Supreme Court: That is true, but the First Amendment does say that you can say whatever you want, no matter how offensive. Johnson’s lawyer: Although the American flag is a symbol of our nation, it is absolutely crucial for the people to have their freedom of speech and right to express themselves. Johnson: I thought we could protest however we wanted. Texas prosecutor: We are aware of this, but Johnson was arrested for not protesting but actually burning the flag and the way he conveyed it. Supreme Court: It depends on what is considered expressive conduct and what isn’t considered expressive conduct. Johnson’s lawyer: Yes, but Johnson in this process did not threaten to hurt anyone, nor hurt anyone in the process of burning the flag. Supreme Court: I believe that is enough …show more content…
“Texas v. Johnson.” Oyez, 21 March 1989, https://www.uzie.org/cases/1988/88-155. Accessed 1 April 2024. “Texas vs. Johnson (1989).” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://s3.amazonaws.com/landmarkcases.org/Texas/Student/Case_Summary_HS_Texas_Student.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2024. SCOTUS brief - "The 'Scientus Brief'" “Texas vs. Johnson.” 20th June 2022,
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Free speech and the First Amendment rights do not give people lisence to desecrate a symbol of pride and freedom. It is not all right to protect those who let it burn, lighting up the sky with their hatred. It definitely is not acceptable to insult the men and women who fight every day to protect this nation by burning the symbol of their labors. Therefore, it is crucial that the Supreme Court pass the amendment to the Constitution to protect the flag of the US.
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
(B) "Texas v. Johnson Certiorari To The Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas." Blacula. (1989): 20pp. Online. Internet. 16 Nov. 1999.
...son, Chief Justice Wallace B. The State of the Judiciary in Texas. Austin, 20 February 2007.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
LAWRENCE V. TEXAS. 478 U. S. 186 :: Volume 478 :: 1986 :: Full Text." US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. .
Can an individual be prosecuted for openly burning the American flag in a political protest? Gregory Johnson did this in a political protest outside Dallas City Hall. He was then tried and convicted of desecrating a venerated object under a Texas law (Penal Code 42.09), which states that "a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates a state or national flag" (317). The question of whether this Texas law is in violation of the First Amendment, which "holds that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" (316), was brought before the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989). A divided court ruled 5 to 4 that the Texas law was in violation of the First Amendment. Using the same Constitution, precedents, and legal standards, the Supreme Court justices came to two drastically different positions regarding the constitutionality of prohibiting flag burning. To see how such a division is possible, we are going to compare and contrast both the arguments and the methods of argumentation used by both the majority opinion (written by Associate Justice Brennan) and the dissenting opinion (written by Chief Justice Rehnquist), which critiques the majority opinion.
Flag Burning can be and usually is a very controversial issue. Many people are offended by the thought of destroying this country's symbol of liberty and freedom. During a political protest during the 1984 Republican Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for burning an American flag. Years later in 1989, Johnson got the decision overturned by the United States Supreme Court. In the same year, the state of Texas passed the Flag Protection Act, which prohibited any form of desecration against the American flag. This act provoked many people to protest and burn flags anyway. Two protestors, Shawn Eichman and Mark Haggerty were charged with violating the law and arrested. Both Eichman and Haggerty appealed the decision because the law was inconsistent with the first amendment to the Constitution. The right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. Burning American flags and other such actions are not treasonous and should no be treated as so, as long as these actions are done to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Thomas, Justice Clarance (2013) Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. No. 11-345. U.S. Supreame Court. Web. 11 Nov. 2013.
In the United States, some citizens and groups have used public burning of the American flag as an attempt to express their political beliefs. Some see this act as inappropriate and argue that the Constitution should be amended to protect the flag from physical desecration. Though, it’s clearly apparent that the Constitution should not be amended to prohibit the burning of the American flag, for it violates a citizen’s rights and could cause the creation of more amendments that restrict one’s freedom of speech. The creation of an amendment banning the desecration of the flag would violate peoples’ right to freely express their opinions. For instance, the First Amendment asserts that “Congress shall make no law.abridging the freedom of speech” (Source A).
For instance, burning the flag, while controversial and often seen as disrespectful, is a form of protest protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution under the Texas v. Johnson Act. states that flag burning is protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech. In the 1989 case Texas v. Johnson, Gregory Lee Johnson burned the US flag during a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention. He was arrested and charged under Texas law. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled his actions were protected under the First Amendment.