State of texas or johnson 1989 essay

Category: Works,
Published: 25.03.2020 | Words: 1506 | Views: 197
Download now

Justice Viveiros delivers the opinion in the court:

Gregory Lee Meeks has been convicted of desecrating a flag

Need help writing essays?
Free Essays
For only $5.90/page
Order Now

in violation of Texas law, a certainty which concerns ones

guaranteed 1st Amendment, constitutional rights. Johnsons

engagement in a politics demonstration in Dallas, business lead him to

express his political problems with the international locations leaders and

governmental policies. The State of Texas conviction of Manley

was performed due to Johnsons conduct, a physically significant act

rather than a created or voiced one and based on two criteria: a

responsibility to preserve the integrity from the flag representing the

strength, pleasure and unity of our country and whether Johnsons actions

endangered societal buy and tranquility. Both standards, which serve as the

basis for Gregory Lee Johnsons confidence, have been explored in

depth, which court concludes the following

Johnsons form of politics expression did not cause social

disorder or interrupt the peacefulness. There were not any violent outbreaks, either

verbal physical, from associates of Johnsons protest, or other

citizens, who may view flag losing as a undesirable, ungrateful, slap

in the face of our land. However , the State of Texas has

known this fact. The State reigned over that no matter the lack of

evidence that Johnsons activities have vulnerable societal buy and

public serenity, on bank account there were zero such occurrences, flag using

has got the potential to do so. The State offers concluded that flag burning

could: initial, stir up peoples feelings enough, perhaps resulting in

intense general public arguments, violent physical differences, or riots, and

second, serves as an invites for others for taking political protests

to the next level, which could always be dangerous.

The States decision brings up two questions, can be flag burning up

being a form of politics protest a great agreeable technique of practicing kinds

First Amendment rights, or an attempt to persuade others to take the

act over and above the rights of citizens to much more serious and precariously

hazardous, acts of protest?, and does the State have right to state

that Johnsons carry out had the or indented to cause a

violent encounter with passionate opposition to flag burning, whether or not

the act did not do so?

Meeks is someone, responsible for his own actions, not

the actions of others. He has decided to practice his First Modification

privileges, by revealing his disapproval of government management and

polices, by publicly burning up and American flag. It really is this legal courts

decision that Meeks has not meant to encourage other folks to take

more extreme approaches of protesting government. Johnson can not be

given the task of wrongful impacts of his intentions.

The state of hawaii has allowed by itself power not really granted by United

States Metabolic rate, by convicting Johnson to get an action that potentially

causes violent confrontations. Had openly burning a flag triggered a

fight or rioting, this would be an entirely diverse case. However

the simple fact remains, the protest triggered no these kinds of event. There is

zero evidence that Johnson intended his demonstration to trigger societal

disorder. Again, the State hasn’t the right to bottom charges of

Johnsons intentions with no evidence, simply expressing issues of the

potential negative effects of Johnsons actions.

The States certainty is therefore unjust, depending on its declare

that Johnson offers threatened societal order and peace. That is not

dismiss the conviction of Johnson entirely, the right from the State

to preserve the integrity of the flag need to still be mentioned.

Also, this courts ruling does not disregard the proper of the Condition

of Texas to advertise and ensure order. History and sound judgment both

show, purchase and tranquility necessary aspects of a stable, strong nation

and both must be guaranteed to protect American citizens. However , it includes

not been proven that Johnsons general public desecration of the flag features

infringed American serenity or provides promoted or intended to stimulate societal


The States certainty of Meeks, based on a responsibility

to preserve the integrity with the flag being a representation of national

unanimity and pleasure, brings about many questions relating to the meaning

of America itself, and what our nation ezds for. The state of hawaii concerns

involve the message perceived by others, at the activities of Johnson. If

a citizen may publicly damage the sign representing the nations

pride and unity with no consequences, then your State features concluded

that it will always be perceived that this pride and unity does not exist

having a drastically negative impact on American world.

The State needs to underezd that the American flag is a

great mark of our country. A symbol which in turn reflects, not merely pride

and unity, yet other areas of America as well. Americans have always

prided our land as the property of the free of charge. The First Amendment

guarantees the best of free appearance, not just positive expression

consenting the us government policies and our leaders, but adverse

expression condoning equally as well. To convict Johnson for publicly

losing a flag as a kind of political demonstration, would present an even

more hazardous message to the American people, than to respect his

directly to do so. The message being that it is wrong and punishable by

law expressing ones values by doing damage to the very symbol of flexibility

each of our nation says we possess right to express.

The Claims conviction of Johnson, on the grounds of

conserving the symbolic meaning with the flag, can be contradictory in

another respect as well. It is traditional and desired to burn off a banner

when it becomes split, old, and improper to represent our region, as a great

reputable means of removal. Texas never expressed disagreement

with this personalized. Therefore , simply by convicting Manley for using a banner

as a way of politics protest, instead of honorably getting rid of an

unfit symbol, the State of Tx has unconstitutionally ignored the

Initial Amendment and ruled to dictate the circumezces intended for burning an

American flag. The state of hawaii has set its motivation and mentioned that banner

desecration, as a kind of condoning government, will be punishable by


Govt does not have right to prohibit expression, neither

the right to enforce its views on it is citizens. In case the flag will be

used being a symbol for everything wonderful about America, it is the proper

of people, who disagree with politics of the time, to use that

symbol as being a sign with their concerns. Consequently , it is this kind of courts

decision the fact that symbolism and meaning from the flag is the very

purpose publicly using it up as a sort of political protest is a

permissible deed, within the limitations of the law. The State is usually

therefore rejected, by this the courtroom, its dedication of Meeks based on

the Claims criterion that Johnson provides wrongfully conveyed unity and

pride do not can be found in America.

The American flag holds a definite place in the hearts of

its citizens, as with mine. It is just a symbol coming from all that makes all of us proud of

who have we are and what this country has achieved. However , the State

of Texas certainty of Gregory Lee Johnson is with out evidence within the

demand of Johnsons intent to encourage societal disorder and interrupt

tranquility. The State in addition has contradicted itself by taking the

responsibility of guarding the meaning of the banner, a

responsibility which has unconstitutionally convicted Johnson, question

him the Initial Amendment correct of free manifestation. The judgment of the

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is therefore Affirmed.