Texas vs. Johnson
...s much, if not more controversy, would put Texas courts on the incorrect end of the law. In 1998 upon receiving a tip from a neighbor, Texas police raided a residence where there was thought to be a “weapons disturbance.” Upon entering the home, the police were stunned to see that not only were there no weapons in the house, but what they found was two gay men having sex. The police arrested them for having “homosexual relations” in a Houston home. John G. Lawrence and Tyron Garner were the two men charged for the crime. They both spent one night in jail, and were fined $200.00 each. The state of Texas had deprived the two men of privacy and equal protection rights. Currently, all sodomy laws in the United States are held to be unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable. Texas had no right to arrest the two men for participating in an activity in the privacy of their own home. Their “tight-ass” state of mind has given the state a bad reputation when it comes to politics and law enforcement, for those very reasons. Given the state of their actions it is not difficult to see how they could have wrongly arrested Gregory Johnson. They over reacted and an innocent man would have had to pay the price were it not for our Supreme Court Over ruling their decision. In this case, that wonderful first amendment served its purpose. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress or grievances.”(Barnet; Bedau 425) This quote is from the Constitution of the United States. It is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, and the issue being disputed in the case of Texas vs. Johnson. The key words to note in this amendment are those, which say that the citizens have a right to peaceably assemble. This is exactly what Greg Johnson and his comrades were doing. The protestors gathered in Dallas in order to protest the Reagan administration. During this protest, someone handed Mr. Johnson an American flag, and some kerosene. He then proceeded to pour the kerosene over the flag, and burn it. Although this action may seem a bit extreme, it in no way endangered the public, nor did it change the fact that he was peaceably protesting. No one was physically hurt, or threatened with injury, which means he was well within the bounds of the first amendment. Despite the fact that several citizens were offended, offending someone does not institute grounds for arrest. Never the less, he was charged with “desecration of a venerated object” which is a violation of Texas Penal Code Ann1 . (Barnet; Bedau 426) Upon his arrest, he was also ordered to pay a $2,000.00 fine. This amount is preposterously ridiculous. Texas State Law states that if a man is arrested while driving under the influence he can be sentenced not only to jail time but also to a $2,000.00 fine. How can you compare an ignorant Neanderthal who chooses to endanger the lives of all those on the road by driving after they have had far too much to drink, with a man who was protesting and burned a piece of cloth? is no comparison and this further demonstrates how wrong Texas was to charge him with this crime. It is also important to note that Gregory Johnson was the only one who was arrested. The rest of the protestors were not ever mentioned. It would seem natural that if one man was charged with a crime, all those who took part, or witnessed the crime and did nothing to try and stop it would be considered as accomplices and therefore should also be subject to the penalties of the law. However this was not the case. Johnson was the only one arrested, and the only one who took the fall for the action of all those who attended. The state tried to claim that it was not the flag itself that they were trying to protect. They were more interested in preserving the symbol which the flag embodies, that symbol being nationhood and national unity. According to Texas, desecrating the flag gives the impression that they are attempting to destroy national unity, and that could be harmful to the people. Therefore, Texas was justified in attempting to prohibit the said action. Where in the Constitution does it say that each state has the right to choose what objects to be considered as venerated? If that were the case, then any symbol such as a map of the U.S., a seal, or the...