Texas v. Johnson: A Rhetorical Analysis
Open Access
- Author:
- Babaian, David
- Area of Honors:
- Communication Arts and Sciences
- Degree:
- Bachelor of Arts
- Document Type:
- Thesis
- Thesis Supervisors:
- Margaret M Michels, Thesis Supervisor
Mary High, Thesis Honors Advisor - Keywords:
- Rhetoric
Law
Supreme Court
Free Speech - Abstract:
- In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States heard the landmark case, Texas v. Johnson. The case centered around the constitutionality of flag burning as an act of protest. The issue arose after Gregory Lee Johnson was arrested outside the Republican National Convention for burning an American flag in protest of the nomination of Ronald Reagan. Johnson was arrested and charged under a Texas statute that prohibited the desecration of a venerated object. In this highly emotional and nuanced case, the Court considered whether flag burning is a form of expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment, whether the likelihood of inciting violence outweighed the value of free expression, and whether the American flag’s history and symbolism afforded it special protection in the law and in society. In a 5-4 vote, the Court found that flag burning is a form of expressive conduct protected under the First Amendment. Justifying the majority’s decision, Justice William Brennan asserted, “[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.” This thesis analyzes the rhetoric of the case’s oral arguments and opinions, as well as the effect of the Court’s decision in American culture. First, I discuss the background of the case and of the study of rhetoric within the context of law. Then, I analyze the oral arguments made by each side and three of the four written opinions. Finally, I discuss the broader effects on society and the rhetorical legacy of the decision.