On August 22, 1984, a demonstration was held in Dallas during the Republican National Convention, leading to an event that would significantly impact the First Amendment landscape in the United States.
Around 100 protesters marched through the streets, voicing their dissent against President Ronald Reagan’s policies.
The protest featured various actions, including a “die-in,” where participants fell to the ground and mimicked the aftermath of a nuclear attack.
This escalated to more confrontational acts, including the defacement of bank property and the destruction of a flag.
Gregory Lee Johnson, one of the protesters, infamously doused an American flag in kerosene and set it ablaze, an act that, while deeply offensive to many, did not result in any physical harm.
The reaction was swift; Johnson was arrested, becoming the focal point of legal controversy when he was charged under Texas’ flag desecration law which prohibited any intentional desecration that could offend.
After being convicted and sentenced to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals intervened, reversing the conviction and asserting that the government could not mandate feelings of unity among citizens, as it violated the First Amendment.
Texas appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which questioned whether flag burning was a form of expressive speech protected under the First Amendment.
Texas’s stance shifted during the oral arguments; the state moved away from asserting that flag burning was not protected speech to arguing that it had sufficient grounds to prohibit it in the interest of national unity and preventing disturbances.
Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his sharp wit during court proceedings, famously countered Texas’s defense, suggesting that provocative acts like burning the flag might serve to enhance its symbolism rather than diminish it.
The government contended that the legislation was necessary for maintaining respect for the flag, pointing to the potential for violence sparked by such actions.
Johnson’s attorney, William Kunstler, a well-known civil-rights lawyer, argued against Texas’s position by explaining the prevalence of flag imagery in everyday life, thereby challenging the state’s expansive interpretation of potential offense.
The Supreme Court had previously dealt with cases concerning flag usage, underscoring that free expression cannot be curtailed simply for being offensive.
In the 5-4 decision, Justice William Brennan penned the majority opinion, aligned with Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy.
The majority held that the government cannot regulate conduct based solely on its expressive elements, as Texas had done by targeting flag burning for its controversial message.
Brennan emphasized that the function of free speech includes inducing unrest and dissatisfaction with the state of affairs.
He expressed that a peaceful society need not suppress provocative ideas while also recognizing that protecting the flag’s symbolic role could not justify laws against its desecration.
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Justices Byron White and Sandra Day O’Connor, contended that the ruling neglects historical context and the significance of the flag.
Rehnquist infused his dissent with poetic references, highlighting the flag’s symbolic importance through various literary expressions and historical events, arguing Johnson’s actions transcended mere free expression and entered the realm of antagonism.
Justice John Paul Stevens also dissented, emphasizing that the state had a vested interest in preserving the flag’s integrity, labeling the act of burning as conduct rather than speech, akin to defacing cherished national monuments.
The case’s outcomes led to immediate Congressional action, as lawmakers passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989 to criminalize flag desecration.
Nonetheless, this act was swiftly overturned in the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Eichman in 1990, reinforcing the principle established in Johnson regarding offensive speech.
The discussion surrounding offensive expression has continued, reflected in later rulings like Matal v. Tam in 2017, where the Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on disparaging trademarks, affirming that offense alone is not a basis for censorship.
Even contemporary political figures have attempted to challenge Johnson’s legacy; most notably, President Donald Trump issued an executive order instructing officials to consider penalties for flag desecration, echoing sentiments reminiscent of Rehnquist’s dissent.
The American flag persists as a complex symbol embodying diverse meanings—sacrifice and unity for some, while representing dissent and disillusionment for others.
The ruling in Johnson clarifies a fundamental tenet of American democracy; the government cannot dictate the significance assigned to the flag by individuals.
As this discourse continues to evolve, it remains clear that Americans retain the freedom to navigate their own meanings of national symbols, encompassing a broad spectrum of respect and dissent.
image source from：scotusblog
