Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
American History
Related: About this forumOn August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson set an American flag on fire during the Republican National Convention.
Texas v. Johnson
Argued March 21, 1989
Decided June 21, 1989
Case opinions:
Majority: Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy
Concurrence: Kennedy
Dissent: Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 54, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
In the case, activist Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for burning an American flag during a protest outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, and was fined $2,000 and sentenced to one year in jail in accordance with Texas law. Justice William Brennan wrote for the five-justice majority that Johnson's flag burning was protected under the freedom of speech, and therefore the state could not censor Johnson nor punish him for his actions.
The ruling invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, which at the time were enforced in 48 of the 50 states. The ruling was unpopular with the general public and lawmakers, with President George H. W. Bush calling flag burning "dead wrong". The ruling was challenged by Congress, which passed the Flag Protection Act later that year, making flag desecration a federal crime. The law's constitutionality was contested before the Supreme Court, which again affirmed in United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag burning was a protected form of free speech and struck down the Flag Protection Act as violating the First Amendment. In the years following the ruling, Congress several times considered the Flag Desecration Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution to make flag burning illegal, but never passed it. The issue of flag burning remained controversial decades later, and it is still used as a form of protest.
Time magazine described it as one of the best Supreme Court decisions since 1960, with legal scholars since stating about it that "Freedom of speech applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like."
{snip}
Background

Johnson (right) with attorney Kunstler, c. 1989
On August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson, then a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, protesting the policies of the Reagan administration. The protestors marched through the streets, chanting political slogans and staging "die-ins" at several corporate buildings to dramatize the effects of nuclear war. Several protestors occasionally stopped to spray-paint walls and knock over potted plants, although Johnson himself took no part in it. At the Mercantile Bank Building, protestors removed the American flag from the flagpole outside. An unknown protestor handed the flag to Johnson, who hid it under his shirt.
When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, protestors shouted phrases such as, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under." No one was injured during the demonstration, though some witnesses to the flag burning felt deeply offended. Johnson was arrested within a half-hour of igniting the flag. One spectator, a Korean War veteran named Daniel Walker, gathered the remains of the flags and buried them in the backyard of his home in Fort Worth.
Johnson was charged with violating the Texas flag desecration statute, which prohibited the vandalism of respected or venerated objects. Johnson was the only individual at the protest to be criminally charged. He was initially indicted on one count of disorderly conduct, but the charge was eventually dropped. On December 13, 1984, a six-person jury found Johnson guilty of flag desecration, and he was subsequently sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2,000. Johnson appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but was again found criminally liable. He then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which overruled his conviction, finding that Johnson's First Amendment rights had been violated. The court found that Johnson's actions were symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, writing that, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also affirmed that his actions did not constitute a breach of the peace.
Texas filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to review the case. In 1988, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
{snip}
Argued March 21, 1989
Decided June 21, 1989
Case opinions:
Majority: Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, Kennedy
Concurrence: Kennedy
Dissent: Rehnquist, joined by White, O'Connor
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 54, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
In the case, activist Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for burning an American flag during a protest outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, and was fined $2,000 and sentenced to one year in jail in accordance with Texas law. Justice William Brennan wrote for the five-justice majority that Johnson's flag burning was protected under the freedom of speech, and therefore the state could not censor Johnson nor punish him for his actions.
The ruling invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag, which at the time were enforced in 48 of the 50 states. The ruling was unpopular with the general public and lawmakers, with President George H. W. Bush calling flag burning "dead wrong". The ruling was challenged by Congress, which passed the Flag Protection Act later that year, making flag desecration a federal crime. The law's constitutionality was contested before the Supreme Court, which again affirmed in United States v. Eichman (1990) that flag burning was a protected form of free speech and struck down the Flag Protection Act as violating the First Amendment. In the years following the ruling, Congress several times considered the Flag Desecration Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution to make flag burning illegal, but never passed it. The issue of flag burning remained controversial decades later, and it is still used as a form of protest.
Time magazine described it as one of the best Supreme Court decisions since 1960, with legal scholars since stating about it that "Freedom of speech applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like."
{snip}
Background

Johnson (right) with attorney Kunstler, c. 1989
On August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson, then a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, protesting the policies of the Reagan administration. The protestors marched through the streets, chanting political slogans and staging "die-ins" at several corporate buildings to dramatize the effects of nuclear war. Several protestors occasionally stopped to spray-paint walls and knock over potted plants, although Johnson himself took no part in it. At the Mercantile Bank Building, protestors removed the American flag from the flagpole outside. An unknown protestor handed the flag to Johnson, who hid it under his shirt.
When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, protestors shouted phrases such as, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under." No one was injured during the demonstration, though some witnesses to the flag burning felt deeply offended. Johnson was arrested within a half-hour of igniting the flag. One spectator, a Korean War veteran named Daniel Walker, gathered the remains of the flags and buried them in the backyard of his home in Fort Worth.
Johnson was charged with violating the Texas flag desecration statute, which prohibited the vandalism of respected or venerated objects. Johnson was the only individual at the protest to be criminally charged. He was initially indicted on one count of disorderly conduct, but the charge was eventually dropped. On December 13, 1984, a six-person jury found Johnson guilty of flag desecration, and he was subsequently sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2,000. Johnson appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but was again found criminally liable. He then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which overruled his conviction, finding that Johnson's First Amendment rights had been violated. The court found that Johnson's actions were symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, writing that, "a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals also affirmed that his actions did not constitute a breach of the peace.
Texas filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking them to review the case. In 1988, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
{snip}
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

On August 22, 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson set an American flag on fire during the Republican National Convention. (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 21
OP
LetMyPeopleVote
(169,209 posts)1. Deadline: Legal Blog--Trump wants to prosecute flag burners. The Supreme Court has already said that's illegal
The president said it was a very sad court that previously rejected flag-burning prosecutions on First Amendment grounds.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-flag-burning-prosecute-executive-order-supreme-court-rcna227012
During the Oval Office ceremony, the president lamented that a very sad court I guess it was a 5-4 decision, he said they called it freedom of speech.
He appeared to be referring to long-standing Supreme Court precedent on the subject. In a 5-4 decision joined by Scalia, the court said in 1989s Texas v. Johnson: 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.
The court sided with Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the flag in 1984 in Dallas during the Republican National Convention. The majority recounted that Johnson participated in a political protest called the Republican War Chest Tour against the Reagan administration and certain Dallas-based corporations. The majority said Johnson was convicted for expressive conduct and that he did not threaten to disturb the peace. It said the states interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity couldnt justify his prosecution......
With that background in mind, lets take a closer look at the new executive order.
While its performative political aspect is clear, a notable legal aspect is the degree to which it acknowledges the limits of Trumps power in this area. Though the order instructs the attorney general to prioritize law enforcement actions against flag-burning, it caveats these instructions by saying to do so in ways consistent with the First Amendment and to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution.
In other words: Do everything you can, except where you cant. Its unclear where that leaves any enforcement actions in reality.
So, the orders legal effect is fairly limited by its own terms, putting aside whatever chilling practical effect it might have on peoples conduct something that cant be ignored these days.
He appeared to be referring to long-standing Supreme Court precedent on the subject. In a 5-4 decision joined by Scalia, the court said in 1989s Texas v. Johnson: 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.
The court sided with Gregory Lee Johnson, who burned the flag in 1984 in Dallas during the Republican National Convention. The majority recounted that Johnson participated in a political protest called the Republican War Chest Tour against the Reagan administration and certain Dallas-based corporations. The majority said Johnson was convicted for expressive conduct and that he did not threaten to disturb the peace. It said the states interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity couldnt justify his prosecution......
With that background in mind, lets take a closer look at the new executive order.
While its performative political aspect is clear, a notable legal aspect is the degree to which it acknowledges the limits of Trumps power in this area. Though the order instructs the attorney general to prioritize law enforcement actions against flag-burning, it caveats these instructions by saying to do so in ways consistent with the First Amendment and to the maximum extent permitted by the Constitution.
In other words: Do everything you can, except where you cant. Its unclear where that leaves any enforcement actions in reality.
So, the orders legal effect is fairly limited by its own terms, putting aside whatever chilling practical effect it might have on peoples conduct something that cant be ignored these days.
By its own terms, trump's latest executive order is subject to the First Amendment. This is simply a stunt by trump that has no real legal effect.
mahatmakanejeeves
(66,561 posts)2. Ms. Toad concurs.