Politics - Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court case about Flag Burning The phrase "Symbolic expression" is usually used to explain expressions that are mixed with elements of behavior. Symbolic expression (or expressive behavior) can be protected by the First Amendment, according to The Supreme Court that has made it clear in a series of cases. Many of these cases have been highly controversial, but none has probably been so, more than Texas v. Johnson (1990) overturning the conviction of a man who expressed his utter displeasure with United States policies by burning an American flag.

During the Dallas Republican National Convention in 1984, Dallas Texas, respondent Gregory Johnson took part in a political manifestation to protest against certain Dallas-based corporations and the policies of administration of Ronald Reagan. The situation tensed when Gregory Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted after a march through streets of the city. Although none of the people present at the scene were neither injured physically nor threatened with injury, yet the flag burning seriously offended most of the witnesses.

The Conviction

On this act, Gregory Johnson was convicted of violation of a respected object in defiance of a Texas statute. The State Court of Appeals affirmed the convicting. Conversely, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convicting and held that the State could not punish Gregory Johnson for burning the flag, in consistence with the First Amendment, in the then prevalent circumstances. The court initially found the burning of the flag as an indicative demeanor of Gregory Johnson protected by the First Amendment, and then concluded that the flag desecration could not be criminally sanctioned by the State with the purpose of preserving the flag as a sign of national unanimity. The court also upheld that the statute did not meet the objective of preventing infringements of the peace...

They validated this with the reason that it was not drawn barely enough to include only those burnings of the flags whose outcome would probably be a serious disturbance, and as the burning of the flag did not threaten such a reaction in this case. Additionally, it emphasized that another Texas statute proscribed violation of the peace and could be used to stop disturbances without penalizing the flag defilement.
The Court's Determinants

The Court held the conviction for flag defilement of Gregory Johnson inconsistent with the First Amendment. Pp. 402-420.

Expressive

Texas had not emphasized any interest that was unrelated to the control of expression in support of conviction of Gregory Johnson. The State consequently had to permit application of the test set forth in United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367. According to this, an important governmental benefit in regulating non-speech could justify secondary limitations on First Amendment freedoms when speech and non-speech elements are combined in the same course of conduct. An interest in preventing breaches of the peace is not implicated on this record. Expression may not be prohibited [491 U.S. 397, 398] on the grounds that an audience taking serious affront to the expression may disturb the serenity, since the government cannot assume every expression of a provoking idea to incite a riot, but has to look at the actual situation that surrounded the expression.

The dissatisfactory expression of Gregory Johnson with the policies of the Federal Government did not fall within the category of "hostile words" too, that are probable to be seen as a direct personal insult or a provocation to barter fisticuffs. This holding of the Court did not prohibit a State from preventing "imminent lawless action" and, as a matter of fact, Texas has a law that specially prohibits breaches of the peace. Since the interest of Texas in preserving the…