Texas Vs Johnson Freedom Of Speech Essay
Does freedom of speech still protect you today? In 1988, the case Texas v. Johnson, a protester named Gregory Johnson, grabbed an American flag and drenched it in kerosene, then proceeded to light it on fire. Desecrating the flag was illegal in Texas, so he was convicted one year in prison for this. This made Johnson and others argue that what he did was his right, due to freedom of speech, it was a political message, and it was legal to burn the flag in other cities. Johnson was justified in burning the flag because of his freedom of speech.
There are multiple reasons Johnson was justified in burning the flag. One reason is that it was basic freedom of speech. It did not disrupt peace nor did he intentionally want to harm someone. One rule …show more content…
He was burning the flag to convey that he didn’t agree with reelection with of Ronald Reagan. The text says “a political message, an act lying at the core of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.” This why he argued his actions were justified.
The other reason he was justified in his actions was that it was only a state law. There were a couple of states that allowed burning the flag, but Texas did not. The state shouldn’t be allowed to make a law that overrules the country’s amendments. Justice Brennan said, “…no official, high or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinions or force citizens to confess by word…” This quote shows that state shouldn’t be allowed to make a decision based on opinions that force people to abide.
One argument that could be made is that this was not right, because the flag symbolizes something important to many people. This is a valid point, because it a lot of controversy and made multiple people angry throughout the whole case hearing. “The way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel differently about {nationhood and national unity}. It is to persuade them that they are wrong.” This basically says that we shouldn’t be angered and punishing those that disrespect the flag, but be more focused on persuading them they’re
There are multiple reasons Johnson was justified in burning the flag. One reason is that it was basic freedom of speech. It did not disrupt peace nor did he intentionally want to harm someone. One rule …show more content…
He was burning the flag to convey that he didn’t agree with reelection with of Ronald Reagan. The text says “a political message, an act lying at the core of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.” This why he argued his actions were justified.
The other reason he was justified in his actions was that it was only a state law. There were a couple of states that allowed burning the flag, but Texas did not. The state shouldn’t be allowed to make a law that overrules the country’s amendments. Justice Brennan said, “…no official, high or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinions or force citizens to confess by word…” This quote shows that state shouldn’t be allowed to make a decision based on opinions that force people to abide.
One argument that could be made is that this was not right, because the flag symbolizes something important to many people. This is a valid point, because it a lot of controversy and made multiple people angry throughout the whole case hearing. “The way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel differently about {nationhood and national unity}. It is to persuade them that they are wrong.” This basically says that we shouldn’t be angered and punishing those that disrespect the flag, but be more focused on persuading them they’re