Melissa Brownell
2nd hour
2-28-11




A man named Gregory Johnson
attended the Republican
National Convention in 1984 in
Dallas, Texas.
He was a demonstrator
protesting the Reagan
Administration and certain
Companies in Texas
A normal protest of marching,
picket signs, expressed opinions
A protestor took the American
Flag from one of the companies
they were rallying against and
handed it to Johnson…..


Johnson took the
American Flag
drenched it in kerosene
and set it on fire…
While chanting:
“America, the red,
white, and blue, we
spit on you, you stand
for plunder, you will go
under.”

Along with: “Reagan,
Mondale, which will it
be? Either one
means World War
III”

-
-
-
County Criminal Court Number Eight in Dallas,
Texas:
Gregory Lee Johnson is arrested after burning the U.S.
American flag in the course of the demonstration outside
the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas
(1984)
He is convicted of violating a Texas Statute prohibiting
the desecration of the flag.
* Sentenced to: One year in Prison
2,000 Dollar fine

-
Court of appeals for Fifth District of Texas:
Johnson appeals his case.
The Court of Appeals for Fifth District affirms his
conviction.

-
-
-
•
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals:
Johnson again appeals his case this time to be
successful
The Court of Criminal Appeals holds that
Johnson’s rights under the First Amendment
were violated.
Johnson’s conviction is overturned
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals highest court in Texas that hears criminal
cases.
The State of Texas appeals the case to the Supreme Court
of the United States, which grants Certiorari.



Does nonverbal, expressive conduct count as
speech protected by First Amendment?
Does Johnson’s burning of the flag constitute
expressive conduct?
Is the regulation of the state of Texas related to
the suppression of free expression, thus violating
the first Amendment?


The Supreme Court holds a 5 to 4 that the
conviction cannot stand because the Texas
Statute is Unconstitutional.
“The states interest in preventing breaches of
the peace does not support the conviction
because Johnson’s conduct did not threaten
to disturb the peace. Nor does the states
interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of
the of nationhood and national unity justify
his conviction for engaging in political
expression”
Justices
VOTED WITH MAJORITY
From left to
right:
Scalia, Kennedy,
Blackmun,
Marshall,
Brennan(gave
full opinion)

VOTED WITH MINORITY
From left to right:
O’Conner, Stevens,
White, Rehnquist


The flag is unique and is most revered symbol of
our nation. The historical associations make it
worthy of protection under the precedents set in
Halter vs. Nebraska- flags can’t be used to
advertise merchandise, also Chaplinsky vs. NHcan’t address any offensive, derisive, or any
person lawfully in the street of public place. The
flag burning wasn’t essential to Johnson’s speech
and the legislature passed a law so it represents
the will of the majority and should stand.

The value of the flag as a symbol can not
be measured. More than just a
representation of nationhood, it also
stands for freedom, religious tolerance,
ect. and to desecrate it tarnishes it’s value.
The problem with Johnson’s expression
was the method and the flag is an
intangible asset that warrants protection.

This is the right decision, though it is
unfortunate that the veterans may feel
dishonored.
Brennan provides past examples where
nonverbal actions were said to count as speech.
Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community
School District: wearing arm bands to oppose
Vietnam war.
Brown vs. Louisiana: segregation sit ins
Schacht vs. United States: wearing military
uniform to protest Vietnam
Various picketing cases
 Cases have demonstrated that offense of some
is not justification to limit certain behaviors as
in:
-Street vs. NY: can’t punish someone for
disparaging the flag verbally.




Most of the public viewed the flag burning
as wrong.
Veterans were especially disturbed by
Johnsons display.
An article in the New York Times describes
the actions Johnson took as being wrong
but they believe in the first amendment
and Johnson not being in trouble.


Based on the First Amendment standpoint
I think Johnson should be protected from
any conviction because he didn’t harm
anyone and he was in protest displaying
his feeling toward the issue.
As from a moral and ethical standpoint his
actions are disturbing and I think he was
totally wrong for what he did. He took his
protest to an extreme and offended a lot of
America, but he has to live with that.


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 itself offensive or
disagreeable.
As evidenced, by the courts ruling, which
was contrary to, and overturned the laws
of forty-eight states.




www.streetlaw.org
www.newyorktimes.com
www.abortle.wordpress.com
Google images