State of Texas vs. Johnson (1989)
State of Texas vs. Johnson (1989)Justice Viveiros delivers the opinion of the court:
Gregory Lee Johnson has been convicted of desecrating a flag
in violation of Texas law; a conviction which questions ones
guaranteed First Amendment, constitutional rights. Johnson's
involvement in a political demonstration in Dallas, lead him to
express his political concerns with the nations leaders and
governmental policies. The State of Texas' conviction of Johnson
was carried out due to Johnson's conduct, a physically expressive act,
rather than a written or spoken one and based on two criteria: a
responsibility to preserve the integrity of the flag representing the
strength, pride and unity of our nation and whether Johnson's actions
threatened societal order and peace. Both criteria, which serve as the
basis for Gregory Lee Johnson's conviction, have been explored in
depth, and this court concludes the following...
Johnson's form of political expression did not cause societal
disorder or disrupt the peace. There were no violent outbreaks, either
verbal or physical, from members of Johnson's protest, or other
citizens, who may view flag burning as a distasteful, ungrateful, slap
in the face of our nation. However, the State of Texas has already
acknowledged this fact. The State ruled that regardless of the lack of
evidence that Johnson's actions have threatened societal order and
public peace, on account there were no such occurrences, flag burning
has the potential to do so. The State has concluded that flag burning
could: first, stir up people's emotions enough, possibly resulting in
intense public arguments, violent physical disputes, or riots, and
second, serves as an invitation for others to take political protests
to the next level, which could be dangerous.
The States decision brings up two questions, is flag burning
as a form of political protest an agreeable method of practicing ones
First Amendment rights, or an attempt to persuade others to take the
act beyond the rights of citizens to more serious and dangerously,
harmful, acts of protest?, and does the State have the right to claim
that Johnson's conduct had the potential or indented to cause a
violent encounter with passionate opposition to flag burning, even if
the act did not do so?
Johnson is an individual, responsible for his own actions, not
the actions of others. He has chosen to practice his First Amendment
rights, by expressing his disapproval of government leadership and
polices, by publicly burning and American flag. It is this courts
decision that Johnson has not intended to encourage others to take
more drastic approaches of protesting government. Johnson can not be
accountable for wrongful impressions of his intentions.
The State has allowed itself power not granted by the United
States Constitution, by convicting Johnson for an act that potentially
causes violent confrontations. Had publicly burning a flag caused a
fight or rioting, this...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.