Texas V. Johnson Case Study

Here is the history behind the Texas vs. Johnson case. A man by the name of Gregory Lee Johnson was condemned by Texas for breaking a law (which was the desecration of the flag.) Johnson damaged an American flag, in 1984, by burning it. He did so in front of Dallas City Hall, because he disapproved of the policies of Reagan administration. He was fined 2,000 dollars and condemned to jail for a year (Texas v. Johnson, Oyez).
Gregory Johnson then tried to petition to the highest criminal cases court in Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The issue that Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had to take in account was whether Johnson’s burning of the flag represents “symbolic speech” which is protected by the First Amendment. His conviction was then negated by the court because they found that it was within Johnson’s right under the First Amendment to burn the flag. In 1988, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case after the State of Texas filed a petition. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision.

“Justice William Brennan, speaking for the majority of the court says ‘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. . . ." (Texas v. Johnson, Landmark Cases).
A dissenting oppion was filed by Chief Justice Rehnquist. He sided with the State of Texas saying that the flag was a symbol of our nation. “The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have”( Supreme Court Dissent).
The state of texas tried to make four different cases on why burning the flag should be against the law.

First, it tried to say that protection under the first amendment covers only written and spoken communication, and the burning the flag was neither of those. The Court overruled that by saying the first amendment covers all communications. Then Texas argued that their statute could be supported under the "fighting words" and “hostile audience" doctrine. Both were shot down. Texas’s last argument was “the Texas flag desecration statute should be understood not as a restriction on the expression of an idea-hostility to the policies of the United States government, but as a restriction on the use of a potential means of expression-the American flag. To the extent this argument implies that the Texas flag desecration statute was a regulation of means rather than content, it is clearly wrong.”

(Stone)
The Court decided that the texas law (the one that is against flag desecration), was directly disobeying the core value of the first amendment. That core value is that the government is not allowed to prevent the manifestation of an idea merely because the idea is offensive or disagreeable to the society. The Court then says that if the state's interest could withstand rigorous examination then this "content based" restriction could withstand constitutional challenge (Stone).