CASE While the Republican National Convention was taking place in Dallas in 1984 Johnson was participating in a political

demonstration against Reagans administration and some Dallas-based companies. Johnson unfurled an American flag, doused it with kerosene and set it on fire. Some witnesses testified that they were seriously offended by his action. The Court convicted Johnson for desecration of a venerated object. The State Court of Appeal affirmed the first decision. However the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State consistent with the First Amendment could not punish Johnson in these circumstances. The burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity, and the statute did not meet the States goal of preventing breaches of peace. The State of Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Is Johnsons conduct consistent with the First Amendment? Does the States interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify Johnsons conviction? Did the burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct permitting him to invoke the First Amendment?

FACTS

ISSUES

TRIAL COURT DECISION

Convicted Johnson for desecration of a venerated object in violation of Texas Penal Code.

APPELLATE The State Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. COURT DECISION Reversed. The State consistent with the first amendment could not punish Johnson in these circumstances. Johnsons act was expressive conduct protected by the first amendment and the State could not criminally sanction flag burning in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of SUPREME COURT nationhood. "Given the context of an organized demonstration, speeches, JURISDICTION slogans, and the distribution of literature, anyone who observed appellant's act would have understood the message that appellant intended to convey. The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly `speech' contemplated by the First Amendment. Amendment I, Texas. Penal Code Ann.42.09 (1989) RULES OF LAW

The state cannot convict a person for expressing conducts according to amendment 1"

REASONING

As the burning of the flag was an expressive conduct showing disagreement with Reagan administration, although the Court had pointed out the importance of the American flag as a symbol of nationhood, government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable, and the respect for the flag isnt an exception to this principle. Also, The state of Texas claims that an audience that takes serious offense at particular expression is necessarily likely to disturb the peace and that the expression may be prohibited on this basis. However, the Court said that Johnsons conduct didnt threaten to disturb the peace, so the State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support Johnsons conviction.

Use the following chart as a guide to analyze US Landmark Cases: