Johnson V. Johnson Case

Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

In the case of Johnson vs. Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson was brought to court for burning the American Flag outside of the convention center during the Republican National Convention. The incident occurred in Dallas Texas in the year 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President. The report stated that Johnson was protesting against Reagan’s policies in America. Johnson was proved to be a member of a private institution that promoted the communist movement. His protest against Reagan expressed his dissatisfaction. Johnson was arrested and charged for violating a Texas statue fined $2000 dollars for his actions. In response to the fine, Johnson appealed and took his case to the United States Supreme Court.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

Texas v. Johnson took place in 1989. The historical significance of the Supreme Court’s decision is that the burning of an American flag is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment. The case originated after Johnson burned the United States flag during a protest. Johnson was arrested, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. Johnson appealed his case to the appeals court in Texas but lost. Johnson’s case then went to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas which lead to the overturning of Johnson’s conviction.

There is no video of this incident. W-1 did not want to be interviewed. There are not any TPO/CPO’s in place at this time for either the complainant or the defendant. Your affiant queried MPD databases there is documented cases of domestic violence, the defendant has been arrested for assaulted the complainant before.

The issue in the present case is whether Officer Simon had reasonable suspicion to justify pulling the defendant over? Stops by the police are referred to as a “Terry stop.” Terry v. Ohio. Thus, “police may make a brief investigatory stop if they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.” See Terry v. Ohio. See also State v. Montel.

The Dred Scott Case was a court case that began in 1846 and lasted until 1857. Dred scott was a slave in the earlier 1800’s. It all began when a surgeon in the U.S. army that was named Dr. John Emerson bought Scott from the family he had been previously owned by, and moved him to the free state of Illinois. In 1840, Scott moved, along with his children and wife, all around the country, between the free territories of Wisconsin and Louisiana, following Emerson and his work. However, in 1843, Emerson died leaving his now widowed wife Eliza, the Scott family.

In 1964, the average percentage of black males with a high school diploma was 14.6%, which is exactly 13% less than the white male population. In December of 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested for not standing up on a bus to allow a white person to sit. Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested on April 16, 1963 during a protest. He then wrote the "Letter from Birmingham Jail" making an argument that citizens should have the right to disobey unfair laws. The civil rights movement caused very much change in America: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessey v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of education.

The case Texas v. Johnson happened in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan in front of the convention center in Dallas, Texas. He was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade (Texas v. Johnson in 1989: Summary, Decision & Significance, Stephen Benz). During the 1984 Republican National Convention, he participated in a political demonstration. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration. While they were marching through the streets, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag. Johnson set the flag on fire when they reached Dallas City Hall, where the Convention was held.

The case Texas v. Johnson happened in 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest President Ronald Reagan in front of the convention center in Dallas, Texas. He was a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade (Texas v. Johnson in 1989: Summary, Decision & Significance, Stephen Benz). During the 1984 Republican National Convention, he participated in a political demonstration. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration. While they were marching through the streets, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag. Johnson set the flag on fire when they reached Dallas City Hall, where the Convention was held. After their protest, Johnson was arrested and

William Johnson is a 65-year-old male that was readmitted to Holy Cross after spending 6 days in a skilled nursing facility. The client was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of influenza. The sign on the door of the client’s room says droplet precautions. You observe the staff going in and out of the patient’s room without donning the appropriate PPE. You stop at the door to don your PPE before entering the patient’s room and a hospital employee states that the client is no long on precautions but the signs have not been removed from the door. What do you do?

The question is unique. In my judgment rules that apply to a host of other symbols, such as state flags, armbands, or various privately promoted emblems of political or commercial identity, are not necessarily controlling. Even if flag burning could be considered just another species of symbolic speech under the logical application of the rules that the Court has developed in its interpretation of the First Amendment in other contexts, this case has an intangible dimension that makes those rules inapplicable.”

When Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided in 1857, it made an enormous impact on the United States. It riled up both pro- and anti-slavery Americans. It angered many Americans in an extreme example of judicial activism. Some say it made the Civil War inevitable. By the time the dust had settled and the 13th and 14th Amendments reversed the Court’s decision, Dred Scott could be considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. And yet, although the case was egregiously wrong, it still can be considered a “great case”.

Johnson & Johnson could take more money and experiment more on their products. They need to avoid any lawsuits. They do not need no more recalls or negativity towards their name. They need to spend more money testing on their products before releasing them. On the safe side, they can use people for experiments, pay them, and sign legal rights to avoid lawsuits. They will be fine if they stick to deontology theory by obligating their consumer with nothing but safe products. They stick to benefit more people they will be using the utilitarianism theory. They will be gaining their charter back with all these great things, so virtue will come in the picture. They main focus should be making sure them bringing out great quality safe products or

I, Jenny CReATON, do hereby retain the services of DAISY, Attorney-at-Law to act for and on my behalf in the matter related to the estate of CRATON.