Texas Vs Johnson : Burning Of Flag Protected Under First Amendment

In Texas Vs. Johnson (1989 ), the Supreme Court held that burning of flag of the United States is protected under First Amendment of the Constitution.

What were facts of Texas Vs Johnson ?

One Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas against policies of Reagan Administration. The Protestors marched through streets. Near the Dallas City Hall, Mr. Johnson poured kerosene on the National Flag and burnt it and also shouted “America red white and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under”. Some of patriotic spectators felt offended by burning of the flag. A Korean war veteran collected the remains of the burned flag and buried in the backyard of his house. Johnson was arrested within half an hour of the incident. Johnson was charged with violation of Texas Flag Desecration Code and convicted by jury. His appeal before Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas was dismissed but his conviction was overruled by Texas Court of Criminal Appeals wherein the Court held that Jonhson’s actions were symbolic speech which was protected by First Amendment. State of Texas filed Appeal before the Supreme Court.

What were findings of the Supreme Court in Texas Vs Johnson ?

The Supreme Court held that First Amendment protects non- speech act as symbolic speech. The First Amendment does not end at written or spoken word. Flags are also vessels of symbolic speech. The Court found that Jonnson’s burning of flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment. The Court did not hold Jonhson liable for breach of peace and no disturbance or peace occurred due to actions of Jonhson. The Court held that State can only punish such speech which would incite “imminent lawless action” which was not the case in the burning of the flag. The judgment shocked many of the Americans and criticized by them. To nullify the judgment the Congress passed Flag Protection Code which was again struck down in United States Vs. Eichman.

________________________________________