In Texas v. Johnson, the US Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as it counts as symbolic speech and political speech. The case involved Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned an American flag in 1984 as a protest against Reagan administration policies. The court held that state laws criminalizing flag burning violated the First Amendment’s protection of symbolic speech.
In a split decision, the Supreme Court determined that Johnson’s actions were symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. The Texas statute deprived Johnson of only one inarticulate symbolic form of protest, which was profoundly offensive to many. This landmark decision served as the crux of the debate about burning the U.S. flag in protest.
In 1984, Johnson burned an American flag outside the convention center where the 1984 Republican National Convention was being held in Dallas. In an appeal, Johnson argued that burning the American flag was symbolic speech and protected by the First Amendment. The Texas appeals court agreed, and the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech, which is protected under the First Amendment.
In summary, Texas v. Johnson was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court that held that burning the American flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The case serves as a crucial precedent for the protection of symbolic speech and political speech in states that criminalize flag burning.
📹 Can You Burn An American Flag? | Texas v. Johnson
In episode 7 of Supreme Court Briefs, a dude named Johnson burns the American flag and the whole country seems to freak out.
Why is it called a landmark?
A landmark is a geographic feature used by explorers and others to find their way back or through an area. Ancient structures like the Lighthouse of Alexandria and the Colossus of Rhodes were built to guide ships to ports. In modern usage, a landmark includes easily recognizable structures like monuments or buildings. In American English, landmarks are used to designate places of interest to tourists due to notable physical features or historical significance.
In British English, landmarks are often used for casual navigation, such as giving directions. In urban studies and geography, a landmark is an external point of reference that helps orientation in a familiar or unfamiliar environment. Landmarks can be natural or human-made, both used to support navigation and finding directions. A variant is a seamark or daymark, a structure intentionally built to aid sailors navigating featureless coasts.
?)
What was the court deciding in the landmark court case Texas v Johnson 1989 )?
During the 1984 Republican National Convention, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened, but several witnesses were seriously offended. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision, holding that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances, consistent with the First Amendment.
The court found that Johnson’s burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, and the statute did not meet the State’s goal of preventing breaches of the peace. Another Texas statute prohibiting breaches of the peace could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration. The court held that Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment.
Why is Texas v Johnson considered a landmark?
In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson, thereby recognizing that symbolic speech, regardless of offensiveness, is protected under the First Amendment. This decision is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or commentary on pending cases or legislation.
What is the impact of Texas v. Johnson?
The Johnson decision, which limited a Texas state law, led to the federal government enacting a law prohibiting flag burning. The Supreme Court ruled that this did not address the constitutional defect, and the 7-3 majority from Johnson deemed the law still discriminatory based on viewpoint. The law was struck down, indicating that the Supreme Court’s decision was not a cure for the constitutional defect. These resources are for educational purposes only and are not intended to provide legal advice or commentary on any pending case or legislation.
What does it mean to be a landmark decision?
Landmark decisions establish new precedents, significant legal principles, or change the interpretation of existing law. In Commonwealth countries, these decisions are considered leading decisions, settling the law of the question involved. A landmark decision is a significant case that establishes a law firmly in an area, usually referring to a U. S. Supreme Court case. It may have long-term or short-term significance, and may be influenced by politics, economics, or other societal changes.
The United States Constitution did not provide for judicial review of laws and court decisions, but the US Supreme Court assumed this power with its first landmark decision, Marbury v. Madison, which established its “power to say what the law is” and interpret the constitution.
What is considered a landmark?
Landmarks are significant features in a landscape or town that make a place easily recognizable. They are often marked with a sign indicating their significance.
Why is the Hernandez v Texas case considered a landmark case?
Ignacio García’s White But Not Equal explores the case of Pete Hernandez, a young Mexican-American cotton picker, who was accused of murdering Joe Espinoza and charged with life imprisonment by an all Anglo-Saxon jury in 1951. The case was brought to the United States Supreme Court by Mexican American civil rights lawyers Gus Garcia, Carlos Cadena, and James de Anda. The Court unanimously ruled that the 14th Amendment protects those beyond the “two class theory” and that Mexican Americans were a “special class” in Jackson County, Texas.
Despite over 100 years of citizenship rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and post-WWII integration into the local economy, Mexican Americans in Texas endured segregation in systemic jury discrimination, which reached a climax in 1951 with the Hernandez case. The Texas Court of Appeals held that the 14th Amendment applied to a “two class theory”, classifying Mexican Americans as a special class within the white race.
With financial assistance from LULAC, the Pan American Union, the American G. I. Forum, and locals, the Supreme Court granted Hernandez another trial with a jury of his peers, indicting and imprisoning him for murder.
Why is Lawrence v Texas a landmark case?
Lawrence v. Texas was a landmark case where the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated sodomy law across the United States, making same-sex sexual activity legal in every state and territory. The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, overturned the previous ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld a Georgia statute and did not find a constitutional protection of sexual privacy. The court in Lawrence v. Texas explicitly held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by the substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This decision was a breakthrough for the gay rights movement and helped set the stage for Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex marriage as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. Before Lawrence v. Texas, legal punishments for sodomy included fines, life prison sentences, or both.
Why is Kent v United States considered a landmark case?
In the case of Kent v. United States, the Supreme Court established a precedent for juvenile due process. This precedent ensured that youth in juvenile court jurisdictions were entitled to equal due process and required that cases be thoroughly investigated before jurisdiction could be waived.
Why is this case considered a landmark case?
Landmark decisions are significant legal principles or concepts that significantly change the interpretation of existing law. They can distinguish a new principle that refines a prior one without violating the rule of stare decisis or establish a measurable standard for courts to apply in future decisions. In the United States, landmark court decisions are most frequently from the Supreme Court, but courts of appeals may also make such decisions. In Smith v.
Collin, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and allowed the Seventh Circuit’s opinion to stand. While many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
📹 Texas v. Johnson (SCOTUSbrief)
At the 1984 Republican National Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson burned the United States flag in protest of the Reagan …
While I agree with the decision of the court on this one, I don’t think Johnson had the right to burn that specific flag. It would have been one thing if he went out and bought it and then burned it but he didn’t. It was a stolen flag that was then burned. That’s vandalism. Texas may have had more luck if they argued the vandalism angle instead of “but it’s the American flag”, but who knows?
One of my favorite cases. Look at Justice Scalia and his vote. He clearly hated that the flag was burned. He probably wanted the flag burner to go to jail. But he voted for liberty and the right to express yourself as a citizen. This is one of the cases that transcends bias, political leaning or personal wants. Unfortunately these cases are not the common occurrence and mostly conservatives vote for conservative laws even if they restrict liberty. And the same is the case for left leaning judges.
Fun fact: the US military is the biggest burner of American flags. According to the US Flag Code: “The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem of display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.” Hence, the practice of flag burning can be viewed as entirely patriotic–when the flag is dishonored (perhaps by the action of a president), it is the citizen’s duty to burn it.
I think it’s crazy that anyone would think it’s ok to imprison someone for burning a flag for any longer than they could be imprisoned for burning any other object. Like, if you made a massive pure out of burning flags, and the fire got out of control, and you didn’t start it on your property, and you accidentally burned down someone else’s house as a result, then I would get it. However, if all you’ve done is burnt a single flag, I don’t see why that should be considered any different than burning a newspaper, or a book, or a cross, or a Bible, or a qu’ran, or any other seemingly important object.
This case still upsets me to this day, not because of the outcome, for which I 100% agree, but the asinine dissent. The dissent sounds like they either don’t actually care about the spirit of the law or were afraid of their legacy being perceived as “the one who said flag burning was okay.” I think it’s a little bit of column A and B.
Wow, I didn’t know the Supreme Court decision was so close.. 5 to 4… If just one justice had gone the other way, it would be illegal to burn the flag. Although I would never burn our flag, I believe it is extremely important that we have the right to do so. If we didn’t, we wouldn’t be living under a true democracy.
I actually have multiple opinions on this one. If you’re gonna burn the flag, you should expect that people’ll bully you. However, no government should outlaw any sort of flag burning when the person burning the flag, owns that specific flag. Think about it as, you buy a flag, bring it to some kind of protest, and then set it a blaze. Very provocative, but the flag was your property. Lastly, You should NOT steal a flag to burn it in protest, not from the government, nor any individual. That’s theft, destruction of property, and/or vandalism. The first amendment doesn’t apply to you stealing a flag from someone or somewhere and burning it in the street in front of the flag owner.
It’s ironic that the Texas law is phrased in exactly the kind of way in which many laws protecting religious scriptures are written. Yet, I’m quite confident that if someone had tried to sue someone for burning a Quran, Texas would have laughed them out of the room claiming it’s protected under free speech
People on both ends of the American political spectrum are free to express their right to free speech. Extreme conservatives have every right to wave their Trump flags around, and extreme liberals have every right to burn their American flags. And no matter where on the political spectrum an individual falls, they are still protected by the first amendment, whether other people like it or not. Free speech is free speech, and every American is entitled to it.
I doubt anyone agrees flag burning is “speech”. Therefore, the only way that an anti-flag burning law can be Constitutional is if there is some loop hole in the First Amendment. Inciting violence seems like a good loop hole to have, but it clearly does not apply in this case of flag burning since Johnson did not use flag burning to advocate violence. The “mythical status” argument is crap, because basically, it would create a “very unpopular” loop hole. That would entirely defeat the purpose of “free speech”. Therefore, I officially declare this case to have been decided correctly. You are welcome. “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.”
“So burn the flag if you must, but before you do, you better burn a few other things! You better burn your shirt and your pants! Be sure to burn your TV and car! Oh yes, and don’t forget to burn your house! Because none of those things could exist without six white stripes, seven red stripes, and a hell of a lot of stars!” -Nelson Muntz (when the Simpsons were actually good)
I normally don’t like bringing religion into such discussions but I can’t help but laugh at people who get offended at burning the US flag. The reason why is that if anything Christians do anymore that could be considered idolatry, it is the near mystical reverence for the flag. Yes I’m making assumptions here, but on average those who hold the flag in such high regard do tend to be Christians. Apologies to those who do not fall under that category but still revere the flag.
Why was the Supreme Court only determining whether actions in general counted as free speech, and not whether flag burning in particular falls under the same domain as bad language and slander that are the exceptions beyond the protection of free speech? Sure, I agree that actions can count as speech, but that’s not why people get mad abut the burning of the American flag in particular. I’m not sure whether burning the Flag should qualifiy as such an exception, but that was still the real issue that needed to be considered.
Yes, people should respect what the American flag represents. The burning of a flag is an insult to what the flag represents as a symbol of the country as a whole. Therefore, the person who does that should be fined an amount of money for their bad behavior, but not subject to being put in prison. In addition, I think people who do that should be doing community service after being fined for their wrongdoing.
I agree with the Protection of the Flag act, and it’s a shame that it was deemed unconstitutional – how on earth can that be so? This is not supposed to be a fundamental right of protest. We have rights under the constitution that enable us to protest and to address grievances without flag burning as a statement. People fought and died to keep that flag waving on many an occasion. It’s a matter of respect!! I’m sorry – I think burning the American flag in protest should be considered a hate crime!
Legitimately saying, American flag represents its people rather than the country itself, and it implies the belief inside millions of American spirits. The 1st amendment is obviously protecting the freedom of individual expression, but it’s never for the case of hate and disgrace toward individuals and communities.