Today in Supreme Court History: June 21, 1989

6/21/1989: Texas v. Johnson is decided.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It is striking on some level that this case (involving a content-based flag-burning law) was 5-4. Scalia and Kennedy joined the majority. Stevens wrote a dissent. The law prohibited ...

`desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action.

He was charged with offending people regarding the way he protested. Talk about "please don't throw me in the briar patch!" territory. Gregory Johnson burned a flag as an act of protest outside the Republican National Convention in 1984.

As Dave Barry noted in his autobiography, no one was paying much attention to such protests. Burning a flag was a sort of trolling.

A lot of drama arose from this, including talk of a constitutional amendment & another lawsuit when a federal flag desecration law was passed. It had the same result.

The division in the Court was foreshadowed with Street v. N.Y., which arose when a flag was burnt in protest of the shooting of James Meredith. The Court split 5-4 there, too, with the opinion resting on the words the protester said.

[A Japanese Student]

And the best parody from The Simpsons.

[Krayt]

The purpose of speech is to have an effect on others' behavior. It's obvious from that understanding that burning a flag, qua button pushing, is exactly that.

Now if you wanna argue a "them's fightin' words!" defense, that's different, but I've always argued that's an after the fact legal defense for popping someone in the nose, not a legal argument for preemptively outlawing the words.

Which oddly seems to have latched in recent years as a valid idea by both sides, depending on the issue, accepted out of hand by otherwise vociferous defenders of rights on places like here. We get to outlaw pissing people off!

When did "we" decide that?

Hmmm. Must be the seductive dream of using power to silence your enemies.

[bye]

Now that I see your answer it appears to be like mine.
The words and the striking are two acts not one. I just doubt any justice wouldn't freak if it were their lawn, their family.

[bye]

City of St Paul case seems wrong, more so for 9 judges saying what they did
Okay , you can't punish one side of a debate, but you should not be allowed to burn a cross on someone's lawn. Those are 2 actions not one.

[wvattorney13]

I remember as a kid people being absolutely outraged by the flag burning decision. It was almost certain that a constitutional amendment would be passed.