hman. The Justice Department admitted that the law was unconstitutional under Texas v. Johnson, but prosecuted anyways, hoping to get the court to reverse its decision. The court decided that “flag desecration is a form of political expression that is protected under the First Amendment rights to free speech,” and ruled in favor of Eichman by a vote of 5 to 4, thus nullify the Flag Protection Act which Eichman had been protesting (“House” 1144). The majority consisted of Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy. Dissenting were Justices Stevens, Renquist, White, and O’Connor. For the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote the following: Although the Flag Protection Act contains no explicit content-based limitation on the scope of prohibited conduct, it is nevertheless clear that the Government’s asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression...Moreover, the precise language of the Act’s prohibitions confirms Congress’ interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction...If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable. Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered, and worth revering. According to Justice Anthony Stevens, “The landmark decision was simply a pure command of the Constitution. It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects even those who hold it in contempt” (Relin 16). Dissenting, Justice Stevens, along with the Chief Justice, Justice White and O’Connor wrote: ...It is equally well settled that certain methods of expression may be prohibited if(a) the prohibition is supported by a legitimate societal interest this is unrelated to suppression of the ideas the speaker desires to express; (b) the prohibition does not...
