Question.712 - Week 3 (1) What issues did the Court address, and which ones did it ignore? (2) What conclusion did the Court reach on the issues, and what reasoning/rationale did the Court use to explain its conclusion? (3) Is its conclusion right, would you come to the same conclusion today, and why or why not?
Answer Below:
The underlying issue of the case draws towards an ethical take on burning the flag, such as whether it states that there is a symbolic expression of speech in doing so and the expression of the burning flag is protected under the 1st Amendment.? ?Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), the supreme court has exercised Texas Flag Desecration law in accordance with the 1st Amendment of the constitution under decision 5-4 (Dyer, 1990; Schwartz, 1989).? Considering the factual occurrence of the event, Gregory Lee Johnson used kerosene to flame the American flag as a sign of expression regression in terms of protest against the policies, and the burning happened outside the Republican National Convention in Texas. Johnson was taken into custody on the basis of a violation of the federal statute.? Johnson was prosecuted under Texas Law with a fine of $2,000 and a year in prison (Dyer, 1990; Schwartz, 1989).? Of all the demonstrators who were gathered, only Johnson was taken into custody since desecrating the national flag was violating Texas state law and also was a criminal offense.? When the conviction was overturned and taken to the supreme court, the supreme ruled that the act of burning the flag was an expressive gesture that was protected under the First Amendment of the constitution. While Texas claimed that it was an act of infringing the state's law, where the peace and harmony of the society were disturbed since the laws pertaining to the conviction depicted a symbol of national unity, in contrast, the supreme court turned down the offense since the underlying notion was to prove that John was trying to express political repentance.? During the 1990 United States V. Eichman case, the supreme court upheld the Flag Protection Act of 1989 with a 5-4 vote, under the notion that it inclines toward protecting a person's expressive rights (Dyer, 1990; Schwartz, 1989).? I believe the underlying ethics tends to play a vital role in such cases, although burning the flag tends to be protected by First Amendment; in terms of political expression, the boundaries of the ethical responsibility of every citizen will be destroyed. The Supreme Court decision is certainly inclined toward protecting the judicial system without compromising the citizen's bill of rights. Though such expressive conduct tends to represent a symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, these actions could set a wrong example with societal values where these prosecution actions could disturb and lay more roots in unlawful and unethical activities in the name of the rights being protected.? References Dyer, J. R. (1990). Texas v. Johnson: Symbolic speech and flag desecration under the First Amendment.?New Eng. L. Rev.,?25, 895. Schwartz, J. N. (1989). Art and first amendment protection in light of Texas v. Johnson.?Nova L. Rev.,?14, 487.More Articles From LAW
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
