Texas v. Johnson | BRI’s Homework Help Series
Should burning the American flag be considered a form of expression protected by the First Amendment? Learn how the Supreme Court addressed this controversial question in the case of Texas v. Johnson.
0:00 What happens when the right to free speech clashes with symbols of freedom? The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” It protects the rights of individuals to express their ideas, supporting open and honest debate in a democracy and permitting criticism of the government. But what happens when someone dishonors
0:21 a national symbol in the name of free speech? This is the story of Texas versus Johnson. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. Supreme Court has protected people’s rights to freedom of speech and upheld the First Amendment. But it has also tried to decide where to draw the line.
0:44 The court has specifically protected symbolic speech. In the 1969 case of Tinker V Des Moines, the court upheld the right of students to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. 15 years later, another case would challenge the extent of the right to symbolic free speech. In 1984, in Texas,
1:05 political activist Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested for setting an American flag on fire outside the Dallas City Hall in protest against policies of the Reagan administration. As it burned, protesters chanted, America, the red, white and blue, we spit on you. Several witnesses were shot during the protest and Johnson was arrested
1:26 for breaking a Texas law against flag desecration. During the trial, the state of Texas argued that flag burning was a breach of peace and it had a duty to protect the integrity of the flag as a national symbol. The defense argued that Johnson’s burning of the flag was an act of symbolic speech and was therefore protected under the first Amendment.
1:47 He was convicted, sentenced to a year in prison and fined $2,000. Johnson took the case to the Texas Court of Appeals, who overturned his conviction. However, the state of Texas appealed this ruling, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in a 5 to 4 decision. The court ruled that Johnson’s burning of the flag was protected
2:07 symbolic speech and therefore was constitutional under the First Amendment. Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion, stating, “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 offensive or disagreeable.” In opposing opinion from Chief Justice William Rehnquist used federalism
2:30 as a basis of his dissent, Justice Rehnquist wrote, “I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the act of Congress and the laws of 48 of the 50 states which make criminal the public burning of the flag.” The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Johnson provoked considerable opposition and criticism from the US public. Some people called for a constitutional amendment to protect the U.S.
2:53 flag from desecration. In 1989, Congress even passed the Flag Protection Act, but the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional as well. Ultimately, the case of Texas V Johnson expanded individual rights under the First Amendment. However, the issue of free speech and flag burning remains controversial.
3:14 Why should free speech be protected even if it’s deemed offensive?
