Sources used in this document:

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

In Texas v. Johnson, the Court took a significant, but very controversial, step to protect the freedom of speech in the United States. The underlying facts of the case are problematic for many people, and the case made it clear that First Amendment guarantees are meaningless unless they protect those whose views are repugnant to the majority of Americans. Gregory Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas. During that demonstration, he poured kerosene on and burned a stolen United States flag. He was charged with and convicted of desecration of a venerated object, a Texas statute aimed at preventing just such actions. Johnson's position was that burning the flag was symbolic speech and that, as such, it had First Amendment protections. The State of Texas' position was that it had an interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and maintaining order, and that both of those interests were more important than Johnson's free speech rights. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with Johnson's position and overturned his conviction. The State of Texas then asked for the Supreme Court to review the case.

The Court agreed with the reasoning of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. First, it concluded that burning the flag constituted expressive conduct, which made it symbolic speech and brought it under the protection of the First Amendment. The protection of free speech is not limited to the spoken or written word, and the Court had a history of protecting symbolic speech. While determining whether an activity is considered speech may be fact-specific, the facts in the case made it clear that Johnson burned the flag as an act of communication. Moreover, it was an act of political communication, and political speech receives one of the highest degrees of protection under the First Amendment. Texas' desire to create a feeling of unity among its citizens was not a compelling state interest, and burning the flag did not create any type of danger. Therefore, Johnson's activity was protected. Of course, the irony is that, had he been in another country, he would not have had the freedom to protest the country in the same manner that he had in the United States.