The Flag and the Freedom It Represents
Article by Ayman Fouad Abdelgawad
Texas v. Johnson
The case
During a political demonstration at the 1984 Republican National Convention, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. Texas convicted him under a law prohibiting desecration of a venerated object where the actor knew the conduct would seriously offend observers.
What the Court decided
The Court held that Johnson's flag burning was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Texas's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity was related to suppressing the message conveyed, and public offence did not supply a sufficient basis for punishment.
The majority did not require observers to approve of the act or deny the flag's symbolic importance. It concluded that government could not preserve a symbol by criminalising this political use of it.
Why it is worth thinking about
A symbol of freedom becomes strangely fragile if its protection requires the punishment of dissent. Johnson reveals a paradox: the flag's constitutional meaning is defended by allowing an act many people experience as contempt for it.
My reflection is that respect compelled by law resembles respect only from a distance. It produces conformity of behaviour while leaving conviction untouched. A confident political community should be able to distinguish injury to a symbol from injury to the freedom the symbol is said to represent.
The case also asks something difficult of citizens. Constitutional protection does not remove offence from public life. It requires us, at times, to answer expression with argument rather than authority.
Read the decision
Texas v. Johnson — archived U.S. Reports scan (PDF)
491 U.S. 397 (1989). Reading reference: pp. 399–420 in the printed report. Archive: Library of Congress, United States Reports collection.