Ingles Juridico

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Flag Burning, Freedom of Speech

In 1984, a Convention was held in Dallas, Texas. Gregory Lee Johnson and his group were protesting against nuclear weapons among other things. Johnson poured kerosene on the flag. Then he set it on fire. While the flag burned, people shouted. No one was hurt, but some people who were there said they were very upset.

Johnson was arrested. He was charged with violating a Texas law that said people couldn't vandalize a respected object. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000.

Johnson appealed his case to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which agreed with him. The court said that the First Amendment protection of free speech included "symbolic speech," which is an action that expresses an idea. It said that flag burning was a form of symbolic speech so Johnson could not be punished.

The State wanted to maintain order and to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity.

The State had argued its interests were more important than Johnson's symbolic speech rights. The court did not agree with the State's arguments.

The State of Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. In 1989, the Court made a decision.

1. What did Gregory Johnson do? What happened to him as a result?

He burned a flag during a protest.

2. What does the First Amendment say about freedom of speech? Why did Johnson say his First Amendment rights had been violated?

First amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…” Johnson said his First Amendment rights had been violated because he had his right of freedom of speech, and this included symbolic speech.

3. What argument could you make that flag burning is likely to cause violence and therefore should be against the law?

Should be against the law because it can be understood like being against the belief and rights of the citizens.

4. What argument could you make that flag burning is symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment?

The first amendment expresses that people has freedom of speech, it doesn’t determine a limit.

5. The Texas Court of Appeals said the government cannot "carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol . . . " What does this mean?

Do you agree that the government should not be able to do this? List your reasons.

It means that government cannot put boundaries on how people reacts to things, government should not be able to do this because it would be clearly a violation of their right of freedom.

6. How should the Supreme Court of the United States decide this

...