Talk:Texas v. Johnson

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas v. Johnson article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Bush-Era Flag Burning Ban Didn’t Fly With High Court, Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson (2018). Bloomberg Law.
Bush Asks Ban on Flag Desecration : Backs Constitutional Amendment in Wake of Supreme Court Ruling, James Gerstenzang (1989). LA Times.
A Fight for Old Glory, Newsweek: New York (1989). Vol. 114, Iss. 1.
"Summertime Patriots", Judy Mann (1989). Washington Post.
Reflection on the Bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, Daniel Pollitt (1992). North Carolina Law Review.
"Keep the flag flying free", Nat Hentoff (2001). Farmington Daily Times.
Flag Burning: Moral Panic and the Criminalization of Protest. Michael Welch (2000). ISBN 0-202-20652-6.
Desecrating the American Flag: Key Documents. Robert Justin Goldstein (1996). ISBN 0-8156-2716-5.

I have divided

I have divided the section on "the case" into three subsections as seemed to me useful in presenting the major issues brought up. If this organization can be improved upon or the subsection headings reworded in a superior manner, I am all for it and encourage such action.

Additionally, information on the concurring opinion and the two dissents ought to be included in the article. I may get to that but encourage others to add that information, along with making any other changes, modifications, and deletions as may be deemed improvements to the article.

Jacob1207 15:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Texas Penal Code 42.09 refers to cruelty to animals, not flag desecration

Section 42.09 does not refer to flag desecration, 42.11 does. Source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/PE/htm/PE.42.htm

Did 42.09 change in the 20 years since then?

C.A.T.S. CEO (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reply comes ten years late, but I have added a footnote clarifying that, as of the most recent revision in 2007, Texas Penal Code § 42.09 now refers to cruelty to livestock animals, where 42.11 refers to "destruction of flag". I'm honestly not sure how they can still have a "destruction of flag" statute in its 2007 Penal Code, given the Supreme Court ruling and all, but hey, I'm not a lawyer. Askarion ✉ 14:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

missing word? Struck down

Congress did, however, pass the 1989 Flag Protection Act, which was also struck down by the same majority of justices as Johnson (in an opinion also written by Justice Brennan), in United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Are we missing a word in the above line or is that leagalize? Ht1848 18:46, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

- - I am not commenting on the grammar or word structure, but I would like to say thanks so much to whoever wrote this article. This is a very clear and easily understandable document.

Notes Section

Is there anything in here that should be added to the Subsequent Developments section or can I get a second on deleting it? Jewisharific 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random thoughts and questions

Anyone know what ever happened to Gregory Johnson, after the trial? Maybe not relevant to this article, but I can't find this information anywhere. He's probably around 50 years old now; I wonder if he's still invovled with communist groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.221.0 (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably teaching someplace along with the rest of the failed Marxists.John celona (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting "vandalism"

Hello,

I am not sure how to go about it, but this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_v._Johnson&oldid=174242522, is destructive, and I'm not sure how to go about reversing that so others can view the information as well. I am reading an older version, but I figured someone should be aware of the issue. Thank you.--198.37.20.140 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he disagreed with the law doesn't make him a communist.Henry hedden (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The entire "The Supreme Court's decision" seriously invokes the writer's point of view, arguing against the dissenting opinions. It needs to be overhauled. 68.63.170.169 (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV over the topp

i assume The source of the POV dispute is the following edit:

03:59, 28 November 2007 Mufka

regardless, the article is now back to it's previous status.

--66.215.224.216 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section needs to be edited. The discussion there of C.J. Rehnquist and Justice Steven's decisions uses biased language.

Jontko (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific? Postdlf (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Criticism of the Ruling and Dissenting Opinions" section of the article the author uses biased language. Here's an example: "He repeated the Lincoln Memorial canard and bubbled on about the "physical integrity" of the flag." Perhaps the author of this article is summarizing Professor Amar, but that is not entirely clear. Jontko (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that's all part of a quote by Amar, which is hard to read as such because it currently uses double quotation marks for quotes within the Amar quote instead of single marks. I'd question the need to quote the essay at such length. Postdlf (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Companies

The article names protests outside "offices of several companies", but not wich companies were, or the reason why this companies were selected, and not others. It also names some "policies of the Reagan Administration". I think all this is important information. Comu_nacho (spanish speaker) (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 21:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]