Posted on 06/26/2017 5:42:47 PM PDT by Uncle Sam 911
On June 21, 1989, a deeply divided United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters to burn the American flag in a landmark First Amendment decision.
In the controversial Texas v. Johnson case, the Court voted 5-4 in favor of Gregory Lee Johnson, the protester. Johnson’s actions, the majority argued, were symbolic speech political in nature and could be expressed even at the affront of those who disagreed with him.
Justice William Brennan wrote the majority decision, with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun and Antonin Scalia concurring. “Johnson was convicted for engaging in expressive conduct. The State's interest in preventing breaches of the peace does not support his conviction because Johnson's conduct did not threaten to disturb the peace,” said Brennan. “Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.”
(Excerpt) Read more at constitutioncenter.org ...
I have always held that it should be considered a breach of peace.
Or if someone wanted to bring a bit of fisticuffs against the burner, they should be advised to demand a jury trial if arrested and prosecuted.
No one would be convicted..
He was right and this ridiculous case should've never gotten that far. It was a cynical political action. Bless Scalia for his allegiance to the Constitution.
I have met Gregory Lee Johnson and he is one of the most vile humans I have ever met, and I have met an axe murderer, child molesters and a mother raper.
While Johnson is vile, the decision was not about him, it was about the First Amendment.
Scalia was right and sided with the majority.
If burning the flag is protected speech then flying it sure as hell should be protected speech. And wearing it on your t-shirt at high school should be protected speech.
He was right and this ridiculous case should've never gotten that far. It was a cynical political action. Bless Scalia for his allegiance to the Constitution.
Well said. I agree.
Scalia was right.
This should be a good precedent for so called “hate speech” crimes.
If you want to prevent people from being jailed for cartoons of Mohammed, this is a worthwhile precedent.
” could be expressed even at the affront of those who disagreed with him. “
I will error on the side of freedom. It’s not yelling fire in a crowded theater.
I agree with your agreement. Scalia did right.
I always agree with Scalia
If he owned the flag, or had permission from the flag’s owner, he should have been able to do whatever he wanted to with it.
If it didn’t belong to him, then he was guilty of destroying someone else’s property and should have been charged appropriately.
The 1st Amendment shouldn’t have been brought in to muddle up the case, IMO.
Correct,it should have never gotten to the Supreme court.There is more important things to worry then attention seeking idiots.
Hard to believe how much the Republican base has woken up. In 1989, they thought flag-burning mattered. And they believed Bush cared about it. And they thought Bush was not a lifelong criminal and traitor who tried to murder Reagan. And they didn’t suspect that the Bushes were a multi-generational crime family with Nazi ties.
Ending the 100-year Bush crime spree is Trump’s first great gift to his country.
You realize that, according to thinking skills as taught in government school, this makes you a proponent of axe murder, child molestation, and mother-rape.
The important thing is that 99.99% of our citizens have a respect for the flag and our country.
But burning a Mexican flag in protest of illegals from there is a hate crime.
I agree that burning the flag is speech - but what does that “speech” communicate?I think that Congress has the authority to define that. And the meaning I would propose is that publicly and demonstratively burning a US flag -and televising it - should be understood as a advertisement by the perpetrator of a desire to sell his US citizenship to a foreigner acceptable to the government. Congress should require anyone demonstratively burning the flag to either sell his citizenship and get out - or publicly recant.
Not so different from your proposal . . .
No, it's not.
Show me any case where anyone in the US was ever successfully prosecuted for that.
“And the meaning I would propose is that publicly and demonstratively burning a US flag -and televising it - should be understood as a advertisement by the perpetrator of a desire to sell his US citizenship to a foreigner acceptable to the government. Congress should require anyone demonstratively burning the flag to either sell his citizenship and get out - or publicly recant.”
I’m sure that law would never be struck down by any court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.