Memorandum Of Law In Support Of . Defendant’S Motion To

This case then was put up to the national level and sent to the United States Supreme Court. There was great public attention because of media. Many groups involved themselves in either trying to support that Texas violated Johnson's first amendment right of freedom of expression, or tried to get a new amendment passed to the constitution stopping the burning of the United States’ flag. The final decision by the Supreme Court on June 21, 1989 was by a 5 – 4 vote, that the Texas court of criminal appeals violated Johnson's first amendment rights by prosecuting him under its law for burning a flag as a means of a peaceful political demonstration. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was "expressive conduct" because it was an attempt to "convey a particularized message." This ruling invalidated flag protection laws in 48 states and the District of Columbia.

In Texas v. Johnson, it deals with Barbara’s views, due to the fact that the judge is faced with a choice which involves the First Amendment. In this article someone burned an American flag, and is now facing trials

In the R.A.V v. City of St. Paul case, a white teenager was arrested for burning a cross in the lawn of the only black family in the neighborhood. According to the state, this was in violation of a 1989 city ordinance making it a crime to place on public or public property a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse "anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, and gender." In this case, a higher court decided that R.A.V’s first amendments were violated because the state was punishing expression. The ordinance didn’t simply make burning a cross illegal, but instead made the expression associated with this act illegal, which the court considered a violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.

An early Supreme Court case that dealt with this issue was the 1969 case ‘Street vs. New York’. Sydney Street was found by police near a burning American Flag in central park, loudly proclaiming responsibility and other anti-flag declarations, all in response to the shooting of a civil rights leader. He was convicted specifically of speaking against the American flag, and in their ruling the Supreme Court found his speech did not justify a criminal charge. In another case in 1974, a college student in Washington State taped peace symbols to an American flag and held it outside his window in protest of events such as the Kent State shootings. He was promptly arrested and convicted of improper use and/or modification of a flag, as opposed to

The Writs of Assistance were warrants that allowed officials to search for material that they had found to be smuggled in any citizen’s home, even without their given permission or a reason to do so.

During the year of 1989, the Supreme Court was faced with a vigorously challenging trial Texas v. Johnson. The supreme court questioned the trail by asking themselves “Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning, or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? The first amendment of the United States grants anyone and everyone the right of freedom of speech. This means that anyone can say whatever they want no matter how radical or how extreme it might be. However speech isn't only through talking, speech can also be done through actions.

The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)

A group of friends met at 16 year old Christopher Eckhardt’s house to discuss their protest of the Vietnam war. The children wanted the Vietnam to end with a truce, and planned on peacefully protesting the United States’ involvement. They planned on wearing black armbands around the Christmas holiday, and planned on not eating any food on December 16th, and christmas eve. However, when the school district found out, they had an emergency meeting on December 14th. The school board decided to suspend anyone that didn’t take their wristbands off. On the first day, two children were suspended, and a third student on the second day. The parents sued the school for violating the student’s rights, and wanted to make sure their children weren’t punished. The Supreme Court debated whether or not the school’s prohibition against wearing armbands in public schools, as a form of protest, violates the student’s freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment. Seven justices believed that the school district represented pure speech that is separate from the actions of those participating in the protest. The Court declared that students do not lose their rights when they walk onto school property. The Court also decided that school districts need to be able to prove that the actions interfered with the school’s operation in order to take away student’s freedom of speech. In this case, the

One of the most important cases in the history of the United States, especially for the freedom of American speech and expression, was Texas v. Johnson. This landmark Supreme Court case allows burning the American flag as grounds of symbolic speech. For the Supreme Court, the question was the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment? During the Reagan administration, many were upset due to Reagan’s policies, especially his military buildups and his missile reforms. During the Reagan administration, many protests took place, including arm bands to protest military, and sign waving to protest Reagan’s tax cuts that “favored the wealthy”. When the Republican National

Johnson Majority Opinion” focuses on an actual court case based on a situation where a flag was burned. The people of Texas were outraged with Johnson. During the time of the case the people gained acceptance to allowing Johnson to be a free man.”The way to preserve the flag’s special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong.”, an excerpt from “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion”(line38), states that those who freely express unlawful thoughts shall not be prosecuted, but proven that what they’re expressing is unlawful.

Symbolic speech can be expressed in many different kinds of forms. The speech can be spoken, written, or be an action. All of these kinds of conduct could be said to express ideas in some ways, however, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. When the court analyzes these types of cases, they will ask the speaker about whether they intended on conveying a particular message and whether it was likely that the audience understood the message and the

“Expression may be symbolic, as well as verbal. Symbolic speech is conduct that expresses an idea. Although speech is commonly thought of as verbal expression, we are all aware of nonverbal communication. Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing…protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message, and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it. In order to convince a court that symbolic conduct should be punished and not protected as speech, the government must show it has an important reason. However, the reason cannot be that the government disapproves of the message conveyed by the symbolic conduct” (Arbertman 442-3).

This case affects all of us today because it prevents local and federal government determine what is appropriate or over the line when we are expressing ourselves.

The North Carolina statute satisfies the ample alternative channel prong of the Ward test because it leaves various methods to disseminate and communicate information that is not limited by the statute. A regulation leaves ample alternatives if “adequate substitutes exist for the important medium of speech that has been closed off.”( City of Laduc v. Gilleo 56). In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, an ordinance was passed to prohibit residents from displaying certain signs on their property.(Id. at 45) Gilleo placed a sign that expressed a political message condemning the Persian Gulf war on one of the homes she owns in Ladue,MO.(Id.) After complaint about someone kicking down her sign, Gilleo notified that having the sign was prohibited in the city and sued on the basis that the ordinance violated her first amendment.(Id.

From the facts presented, the students non-intentionally violated the school dress code policy. First, this case revolves around the issue of religious clothing in observance of a specific religion. In the 1969 case Tinker vs. Des Moines, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that students do have constitutional rights to wear clothing that expresses a political or religious view (Know Your Rights, School Dress Codes, n.d.). The precedent set by the court established the basis for religious freedom in dress, and is echoed by the Religious Freedom Act of 1993. (H.R. 1308 – 103rd Congress, 1993).