Respond to classmate #1
In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court arrived at the correct decision in favor of Johnson. Although extremely disrespectful to the United States’ core values and history, desecration of the American flag serves as an example of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court suggested that the American flag served as a vessel for symbolic speech referencing Stromberg v. California as precedent. In Stromberg v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that under the protection of the First Amendment, a youth camp worker would be able to publicly display a communist flag while working at the camp. Another precedent the Supreme Court referenced in their decision to further argue their point that flags are vessels for symbolic speech was Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court also ruled that under the protection of the First Amendment, students would be allowed to wear black armbands to protest the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court also acknowledged precedent established by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spence v. Washington; although not all conduct may be labeled as speech, any act committed with the intent to convey a specific message and can be understood by those viewing the act is considered speech. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the burning of the American flag could be seen as a clear message due to the event coinciding with the Republican National Convention and thus would be considered symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment.
Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion is the most convincing of all the opinions written by the Supreme Court justices. In his opinion, Justice Kennedy agreed that the decision made by the Supreme Court was extremely difficult due to the American flag’s significance to the United States; however, ruling to uphold the actions made by the state of Texas to punish Mr. Johnson would be unconstitutional and would violate Mr. Johnson’s First Amendment right. Ruling to uphold Texas’s prior decision would have established a precedent that would work against the United States’ best interests regarding the First Amendment and free speech.
Respond to classmate #2
The case Texas v Johnson is a landmark case which was heard by the United States Supreme Court about Johnson who burned a United States flag during a protest. The defendant Gregory Johnson was convicted of dishonoring Texas law by burning a flag which is a violation in the state was convicted of the crime. However, the defendant was later granted a certiorari. The central issue of the case argued if the defendant was covered by the First amendment and should not be prosecuted for his action. The First Amendment protects freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. In the case of Texas vs. Johnson, the issue focused on whether the defendant is being falsely convicted by questioning if a violation on the freedom of speech did truly take place. Johnson action of burning the flag is considered as a symbolic speech. As a result, the defendant’s action is protected under the First Amendment unless it can be proven that it created violence or direct threat of harm to his surroundings.
The act of burning the flag by the defendant is a nonverbal communication to express some sort of disapproval of the state during the protest. Johnson committed the act as a nonverbal message he wanted to relate to the state during the protest. I believed that if the action was to harm someone in the middle of a protest, it would have been done differently. The defendant would not just burn the flag, he would have thrown the burning flag on someone or the public, or directly use it as a weapon in another way. The flag represents the country which carries a lot of profound meaning to the states and the citizens of the country. It is understandable that the act may be seen as being offensive, however we must also remember that the First Amendment also protects symbolic speech. I agree with the plurality ruling of the Supreme Court. I think it is important to remember that nobody is above the law. When someone is being summoned it must be legitimately proven that a crime was in fact committed. There was no presence of intent to harm as a result it should not be seen as an illegal act. If I was a justice during this case, I would vote with the plurality in favor of the defendant. Although I do not agree with Johnson action, but I cannot condemn him for expressing his disappointment of the state of Texas during a protest the way he did. Furthermore, I believe that his action should be protected under the First Amendment as a part of using a symbolic speech with no intent to harm. In the Epstein and Walker book, the author stated that “ The constitution must be interpreted by attributing to its words the meaning which they bore at the time of its adoption and in view of commonly-accepted canon of constructions, its history, early and long-continued practices under it, and relevant opinions of this court.”(pg. 216) upon the final say of the being president being limited to complete some tasks without the say of the Senate or Congress. I think it is important to understand that this quote can relate to the Texas v Johnson case in a way of respecting what is written in the constitution regardless of the offensiveness the act of the defendant may carry.
