- Apr 2018
-
www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
-
die-ins
def: a demonstration in which a group of people lie down as if dead
-
facial challenge
In U.S. constitutional law, a facial challenge is a challenge to a statute in which the plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always unconstitutional, and therefore void
-
Because the prosecutor's closing argument observed that Johnson had led the protestors in chants denouncing the flag while it burned, Johnson suggests that he may have been convicted for uttering critical words, rather than for burning the flag.
johnson's arguments
-
Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 42.09 (1989) provides in full: § 42.09. Desecration of Venerated Object (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly desecrates: (1) a public monument; (2) a place of worship or burial; or (3) a state or national flag. (b) For purposes of this section, "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. (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
the law that johnson was convicted by
-
We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.
punishing someone for desecrating the flag does not make the flag sacred, in fact, it does the opposite and limits the freedom that the flag represents
-
consecrate
def: make or declare something sacred
-
It is the Nation's resilience, not its rigidity, that Texas sees reflected in the flag -- and it is that resilience that we reassert today
people will be more proud of america if it doesnt whine and cry like a baby whenever something doesnt go its why and if it is tolerant, instead of angry when someone disrespects it
-
To say that the government has an interest in encouraging proper treatment of the flag, however, is not to say that it may criminally punish a person for burning a flag as a means of political protest
the government wishes for people to treat the flag with respect and properly and tries to encourage it, however, that does not mean that they can force people to do so
-
gainsaid
def: denied or contradicted
-
we would be saying that when it comes to impairing the flag's physical integrity, the flag itself may be used as [p417] a symbol -- as a substitute for the written or spoken word or a "short cut from mind to mind" -- only in one direction. We would be permitting a State to "prescribe what shall be orthodox" by saying that one may burn the flag to convey one's attitude toward it and its referents only if one does not endanger the flag's representation of nationhood and national unity.
if they said that it was okay to burn the flag, but only to burn it so that it was in line with national unity and nationhood, then it would be saying that the states can force people into a narrow window and "prescribe what shall be orthodox"
-
In Spence, we held that the same interest asserted by Texas here was insufficient to support a criminal conviction under a flag-misuse statute for the taping of a peace sign to an American flag
they are saying that what the other party (like texas) tried to argue is wrong and insufficient
-
evince
def: reveal the presence of
-
However, no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's burning of the flag
answer to texas argument that "its interest in preventing breaches of the peace justifies johnson's conviction for flag desecration"
-
Texas claims that its interest in preventing breaches of the peace justifies Johnson's conviction for flag desecration.
texas arguments
-
The State offers two separate interests to justify this conviction: preventing breaches of the peace and preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity. We hold that the first interest is not implicated on this record, and that the second is related to the suppression of expression
the state's arguments for why they convicted Johnson
-
we must decide whether Texas has asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression
a question they have to address
-
proscribe
def: forbid, especially by law
-
The government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word.
easier to restrict symbolic speech than actual speech
-
Johnson's burning of the flag was conduct "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication," Spence, 418 U.S. at 409, to implicate the First Amendment.
answer to whether this action can be construed at "speech" to be protected by the 1st amend
-
We have not automatically concluded, however, that any action taken with respect to our flag is expressive
despite everything above, not every action pertaining to the flag can be considered expressive
-
we have held, all may find shelter under the First Amendment.
all of these non speech actions have been held that they are protected by the 1st amendment
-
The First Amendment literally forbids the abridgment only of "speech
the first amendment only literally which its words, forbids stopping speech only
-
Johnson was convicted of flag desecration for burning the flag, rather than for uttering insulting words. [n2] This fact [p403] somewhat complicates our consideration of his conviction under the First Amendment. We must first determine whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction.
what they're saying: does burning the flag count as speech to be protected by freedom of speech?
-
We granted certiorari, 488 U.S. 907 (1988), and now affirm
what scotus ended up doing
-
I
actions taken by the lower courts
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
hypothes.is hypothes.is
-
ations that can be cr
hello
-