Dissent

Johnson Vs. Texas could be a controversial case.  The case was ruled in favor of Johnson 5 to 4.  Chief Justice Brennan spoke for the majority of the justices’.  Brennan said,

"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 itself offensive or disagreeable . . .."

http://www.landmarkcases.org/texas/home.html

Brennan along with the following Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy all had the majority vote for letting Johnson go under the first amendment rights.  Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist,  Byron White and John Paul Stevens wanted Johnson to be convicted. 

The majority decided Johnsons win.

 “The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i] f 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 itself offensive or disagreeable."

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155/

 The Justices that disagreed Had some things to say as well but they lost the majority and couldn't really do anything.  There argue was that the flag has been a symbol for the american way of life long before President Reagan was even there, so to burn that isn't just a freedom of expression.

“The majority's opinion reaffirmed central First Amendment doctrine. Nonetheless, four members of the Court dissented because of the special nature of the flag as a symbol. Chief Justice William Rehnquist issued a poetic dissent that celebrated the history of the flag in America. The reaction to Johnson spilled into the national political arena. Within a few months Congress passed the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which attempted to challenge legislatively the Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson.”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O184-TexasvJohnson.html

My opinion

In my opinion of the case of Johnson Vs. Texas is kind of on the side of Texas.  I mean protesters gathered together in front of a political building to demonstrate putting down Reagan.  Johnson was the one of one hundred that actually soaked the flag in gas and lit it on fire.  At his trial Johnson had some words to say. "The American Flag was burned as Ronald Reagan was being re nominated as President. And a more powerful statement of symbolic speech, whether you agree with it or not, couldn't have been made at that time. It's quite a just position [juxtaposition]. We had new patriotism and no patriotism."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/texasvjohnson.html

But Johnson played the First Amendment to me anyway, they said that the reason he got off is because he didn’t have any intention of causing a riot or people to outrage but lighting a flag on fire, especially the United States Of Americas flag was a guaranteed way of causing an uproar.  Johnson is lucky that it didn’t.  I would have had to side against Johnson in this case, I don’t think his freedom of expression should have been mixed with the freedom of speech; he spoke without speaking to me.

“Texas' claim that they needed to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity undermined their case by conceding that Johnson was expressing a disfavored idea. Since the law stated that desecration is illegal if “the actor knows it will seriously offend one or more persons.” http://atheism.about.com/od/flagburningcourtcases/a/TexasJohnson.htm

I can’t say for sure if Johnson had intentions of causing something but he sure did do something in intent to stop Reagan from being re nominated.

Rule of law

So the rule of law for the case of Johnson vs. Texas is pretty simple.  Johnson was arrested and convicted for burning a venerated object in downtown Dallas, Texas.  Johnson was in a group protest against Reagan.  Of the 100 protestors, Johnson was the only one arrested.                         

After Johnson spent his time in Texas holding he appealed his case and won.

“The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction.”        http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html   

Johnson was let go by the rules of the First Amendment stating  “Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment.”

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

Reasoning of the case

The reasons for the case are fairly simple. Texas State was convinced that Johnson had violated their state laws by burning an American flag in downtown Dallas, Texas. They had arrested and convicted Johnson in the state of Texas for desecrating the American flag. But after Johnson got out of his year in jail he appealed his case to the Supreme Court and won on a split decision of 5 to 4. “The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is Symbolic Speech protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case splintered the nine Supreme Court justices, much as the issue of flag burning splintered the rest of the nation.”

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Texas+v+Johnson

Johnson was in favor of the Supreme Court because Texas State could not hold and convict him for such crimes in which he is protected under. Although the court did note that Johnson was not defined under the constitution of the 1st amendment being that he did not write or speak anything. But flag burning didn’t actually have its own crime then it was just banned in several states. The court then said, “The primary mission of the First Amendment's free speech clause is to protect those who speak their mind about political topics that are not accepted by main stream America. The idea of a true democracy is to allow all voices, regardless of their perspective. This inclusion, in theory, allows a consolidation of all ideas for consideration by the electorate. In the case of Mr. Johnson, his issues are directly addressed by the free speech, petition and assembly clauses in the First Amendment.”

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_verdict_of_Texas_vs_Johnson

With everything that the court had heard and the little standing ground that Texas had, the Supreme Court had all of its reasons not to put Johnson back in jail and the outcome was merely on the Supreme Court justices which ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson.

Decsision of the case

After Johnson burned the flag in a protest against Reagan the Texas state law convicted him of desecration of a state symbol, Johnson served a year in jail and paid a two- thousand dollar fine. After this was done Johnson appealed his case to the Supreme Court arguing that, “His freedom to express himself protected his actions.” http://atheism.about.com/od/flagburningcourtcases/a/TexasJohnson.htm

Johnson went on to win the favor of the courts in a decision of five to four, Johnson. Texas was irate with this decision saying that it had a right to protect the flag as a symbol of national unity. But it only falls under a crime if Johnson intentions were to offend one or more people. But Johnson had stated that it was just a freedom of expression against Ronald Reagan’s campaign.

The Supreme Court had this to say to the state of Texas, “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 . . . We can imagine no more appropriate response to burning a flag than waving one's own, no better way to counter a flag-burners message than by saluting the flag that burns, no surer means of preserving the dignity even of the flag that burned than by, as one witness here did, according its remains a respectful burial. We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents.”
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12822/Texas-v-Johnson.html

It wasn’t until 1995 when the constitution made it illegal to burn the national flag of the United States; luckily for Johnson he did it several years earlier. So after spending a year in jail on a charge that Johnson knew he could fight he finally won the Supreme Court over and got let off. Texas state still didn’t want to hear that burning the flag constituted in expressive conduct which allowed him to burn the flag in public, but Texas State lost the battle and Johnson won the war.

Issues of the case

The issues in the case of Texas vs. Johnson could be taken both ways depending on the way that you view Texas statutes. After Johnson burned the American Flag at a protest against the Reagan Campaign he was arrested and convicted of “Desecration of a venerated object in violation of Texas statute.”
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

At first the courts found burning the flag to be an expressive conduct because Johnson burning the flag probably wouldn’t of resulted in the people taking a serious offense to the action due to the fact that it was a protest event and the fact that the people probably wouldn’t of disturbed the peace over it. “ Johnson's expression of dissatisfaction with the Federal Government's policies also does not fall within the class of "fighting words" likely to be seen as a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs.” The court of appeals generalized this under the first amendent. "Given the context of an organized demonstration, speeches, slogans, and the distribution of literature, anyone who observed appellant's act would have understood the message that appellant intended to convey. The act for which appellant was convicted was clearly 'speech' contemplated by the First Amendment." http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/texas.html

Illicit

Mike Curtis

It is amazing the amount of drugs and designer stuff that flows across the world on a huge global outlook. The amount of security and police and customs on these cases is unbelievable. With all the illegal drugs that are flying around you could at any given point and time get anything you want, and in most cases you don’t even have to know people, just be in the right area at the right time.
Drug trafficking along with human and merchandise is growing with a rapid pace and is growing through massive amounts and countries. There are and will always be corrupt people in and around everyday life. With all the law enforcement in the world acting together, I still don’t believe that it will be enough to stop what we are selves have created. I mean why you would pay ten thousand dollars for something when you can get a rip off of it for 10 dollars. Its trafficking at its finest and their isn’t a whole lot we can do about it. I think that it is wrong but everyone does it, you might not realize that you are doing it just because the quality of the merchandise is almost flawless.
With just about every country doing this and corrupt officials everywhere this is going to continue to grow and become a massive business that we are not going to be able to control. The amount of money that these people make would and is enough to influence others to do the same thing. And with this happening there is no end in sight. If only you knew what you were getting into when you go and buy something that you know is worth so much more then you pay, you are helping these people.
Distributers are getting smarter, faster, and more aware of the dangers all the time but they continue to thrive in an industry that is all lies and deceit. All we can do is not buy something that we see and want when we know it costs more. Hopefully this will decrease but as of now it’s on the rise and it’s on the rise fast.