Texas v. Johnson

Texas v. Johnson (No. 88-155). Argued: March 21, 1989. Decided: June 21, 1989 In 1984 the Republican National Convention was held in Dallas, Texas. While there, a group of protesters, opposed to President Reagan's reelection, burned an American flag. Specifically, Greg Johnson was seen dousing the flag with kerosene and lighting it on fire. Johnson was arrested under a Texas flag desecration law. He was convicted and sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2000. The State Court of Appeals affirmed but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision.

The court first found that Johnson's actions were protected under the free speech clause under the First Amendment. The court also found that since the action was not violent in nature and did not create a disturbance that it was not criminally sanctioned flag desecration. The case then went the U.S. Supreme Court to be argued on March 21, 1989.

The Supreme Court had to find if Johnson's conviction of burning of the flag and breaking a Texas law was consistent with the First Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, the court found that it was not consistent with the First Amendment and that Johnson's conviction under Texas law was unconstitutional. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the court. In order to convict Johnson, the state asserted two interests: preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and preventing the breaches of the peace.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals first found that Johnson alone was the one that was convicted and that his actions were symbolic in nature and under the circumstances of the event that it was held at, the Democratic National Convention. "Given ...

... middle of paper ...

...cable. A country's flag is a symbol of more than "nationhood and national unity." It also signifies the ideas that characterize the society that has chosen that emblem as well as the special history that has animated the growth and power of those ideas.

Both opinions for the court put together very compelling cases. For me I believe that the modern interpretation of the constitution is the correct interpretation to go with. The dissenting opinion cited many references to wars and revolutionary times. This was the Republican National Convention where there was a protest, not revolutionary times where the nation was being oppressed by British tyranny. Johnson was clearly protected by the First Amendment and did not incite any riots, did not disturb the peace, and only offended people by his actions which were protected by free speech.

Texas v. Johnson