Question

In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that Johnson's right to

express his views had not been abridged. "It was Johnson's use of this particular
symbol, and not the idea that he sought to convey by it or by his many other
expressions, for which he was punished....Surely one of the high purposes of a
democratic society is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and
profoundly offensive to the majority of people whether it be murder,
embezzlement, pollution, or flag burning." How would you respond to this argument?

Answer 1

The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. Johnson that flag burning as a form of protest is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment, counter to Justice Rehnquist's dissenting opinion, which suggested that Johnson was punished for the act itself and not his expressions.

Step-by-step explanation:

The argument presented by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissenting opinion on Texas v. Johnson suggests that Gregory Lee Johnson's conviction for flag desecration did not violate his First Amendment rights because it was not his ideas or expressions that were being punished, but his specific act of burning the flag. However, the Supreme Court's majority decision was that the act of flag burning constitutes symbolic speech that is protected by the First Amendment. This is underpinned by the principle that the government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because it is offensive. Furthermore, historical precedents such as Brandenburg v. Ohio have established that only speech that incites imminent lawless action can be restricted. The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson extends the protection of free speech to include symbolic acts, reinforcing the interpretation that the freedom of expression is broadly protected in the United States, barring specific exceptions like incitement to imminent lawlessness or threats.