Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Legal Issues Texas v Johnson Texas v Johnson Justice Brennan’s opinion in Texas v. Johnson Justice Brennan cited several First Amendment cases to show that a precedent was set to encompass protection for expression which is not spoken or written (i.e., protection for symbolic actions such as protesting conflict through arm-band wearing, sit-ins, etc.). The cases cited, including the current one, were subject to the O’Brien test, which is a measure to determine if the State’s statute can be considered valid, in that it specifically forbids non-communicative expression for the benefit of direct substantial In defense, the State extended two interests to justify the limitations on expression: preventing disturbance of the peace and protecting the flag as “a symbol of nationhood and national unity.” The Court deemed that the first qualification was not subject to the O’Brien test, and that the second was a direct maneuver to limit expression. The Court first showed that Johnson’s action did not classify as either “breaching the peace,” or as “fighting words.” Thus, the circumstances must be evaluated to determine whether or not the motive for the action was to directly incite or produce “imminent lawless action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio), and whether or not the breach of peace actually occurs. Justice Brennan stated that the First Amendment’s purpose was to defend such controversial and “disagreeable” speech and actions, rather than to censor it based upon the “potential” for a breach of the peace. Justice Brennan showed that the second motive behind the Texas statute might show direct governmental interest in limiting expression, but that the law did not qualify protection under the O’Brien test because the action was a “suppression of free The Court continued by showing that the flag cannot be protected simply because the majority of people in the State hold it in high regard. Rather, the State cannot Constitutionally form an opinion of the flag, because it then assumes that only one view of the flag exists. Since more than one view exists, and by protecting only one opinion when many are present, the State is showing unjust and biased preference for that belief. The Court also affirmed that the action of burning the flag does not lessen the symbolism of the flag, so no specific governmental interest can exist. Bibliography: Word Count: 375
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.