Question

25 POINTS

DIRECTIONS:

Act as a Supreme Court justice and write an opinion for the issue in this case. Choose the side you agree with more and write a one paragraph summary explaining why you would rule in that party’s favor.

Support your opinion with evidence from the facts and arguments of the case.



Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Facts: During the Republican National Convention in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a group political demonstration. The demonstrators were opposed to nuclear weapons. One demonstrator took an American flag from a flagpole and gave it to Johnson. The demonstration ended in front of the Dallas, Texas, city hall, where Johnson set fire to the American flag. While the flag burned, protesters chanted “America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you.” There were no injuries or threats of injury during the demonstration.

Johnson was arrested and charged with violating a Texas state law that banned the desecration of the American flag in a way that would seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe his action. Several people were offended by the flag burning and said so in court. Johnson was convicted, but he appealed, saying that the Texas law violated the First Amendment, which protects free speech.



Issue: Does a law banning the burning of the flag violate the First Amendment?



First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances



Arguments for Texas

For 200 years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of the nation.
The flag symbolizes more than national unity. It has strong significance for war veterans and their families. It symbolizes our shared values of freedom, equal opportunity, and religious tolerance. It is in the government’s interest to protect this important American symbol.
Texas did not punish Johnson’s message, just the means he used to convey it.
Even if the action of flag burning can be interpreted as speech, we don’t have to allow all speech. There must be reasonable limits. There are other ways that Johnson could have expressed his views.


Arguments for Johnson

The government may not prohibit expression simply because society finds the ideas presented offensive.
The Supreme Court has long recognized that speech can be more than the spoken or written word. Actions are symbolic speech when the actor intends to convey a particular message and there is a great likelihood that those watching would understand the message.
Johnson’s actions did not incite violence or disrupt the peace.
While it is important for the government to preserve the flag as a symbol, it is more important to ensure Americans’ rights to protest when they disagree with the government.

Answer 1

Answer: Point of view of my own

Explanation: As a Supreme Court justice, I would rule in favor of Johnson, and find that the Texas law banning the burning of the flag violates the First Amendment. Although the American flag holds great significance and is an important symbol of our nation, it is not above the Constitution. Johnson's actions were a form of symbolic speech, protected under the First Amendment. The fact that some people were offended by his actions is not enough to restrict his right to express his message. Additionally, there were no threats of violence or harm during the demonstration, making it a peaceful form of protest. It is essential to protect the right to protest, even when it involves disagreeable or offensive actions. Therefore, the Texas law violates the First Amendment and should be struck down.