Download now
Justice Viveiros delivers the opinion in the court:
Gregory Lee Meeks has been convicted of desecrating a flag
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
disorder.
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
law.
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.
