The action which initiated the case was burning of the US flag, and the issue was whether the flag burning comprises “Symbolic speech” which the First Amendment protects. Gregory Lee Johnson burned a US flag outside the Dallas City Hall, where some people had gathered to protest the policies of Regan (United States Court, n.d.) . The flag burning was a protest against President Ronald Reagan’s policies. Johnson was detained and charged with violating the Texas decree which prevented the defilement of a respected object, which included the US flag when such actions were potentially to provoke resentment in others. In this case, the plaintiff was Texas, while the defendant was Gregory Lee Johnson.
Symbolic speech denotes an action which expresses an opinion or idea without the use of words alone. The law acknowledges that verbal words are not the single way for individuals to express themselves, and thus other means of expression are protected under the Free Speech Clause of the Constitution (Goldstein, 2000) . Such could constitute actions like participating in a demonstration, the waving of flags, wearing particular clothes, buttons or other items. The symbolic speech was important in this case because the court US Supreme Court contended that defilement of the American flag was constitutionally protected, as it was a type of symbolic speech the First Amendment safeguarded (McGoldrick 2008). In the ruling, I believe that the court got it right because burning the flag was a form of expressing an idea which the government could not outlaw as the First Amendment safeguarded it under Symbolic Speech.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The majority was in accord with Johnson and reasoned that flag burning entails a type of Symbolic speech’ that the First Amendment protected. Also, the majority pointed out that freedom of speech safeguards acts which people might find extremely offensive, although the rage of the society only does not justify suppression of free speech (United States Court, n.d.) . Conversely, the dissent reasoned that the flag’s distinctive status as a national unity symbol surpassed concerns of ‘Symbolic speech” and so, the government might legally outlaw burning of a flag.
References
Goldstein, R. J. (2000). Flag burning and free speech: the case of Texas v. Johnson . Lawrence KS: University Press of Kansas.
McGoldrick Jr, J. M. (2008). Symbolic speech: a message from mind to mind. Okla. L. Rev. , 61 , 1.
United States Court. (n.d.). Facts and Case Summary - Texas v. Johnson. Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case- summary-texas-v-johnson
