It invalidated the conviction of a man fined $2000 and sentenced a year in prison, much to the dismay of Rehnquist, whose dissent quotes from "Barbara Fritchie" and the "Concord Hymn.
One dissent in this case attacks the majority for acting "as a Platonic guardian admonishing those responsible for public opinion as if they were truant schoolchildren." This decision was upheld a year later by two cases, United States v. Haggerty and U.S. v. Eichman, which invalidated analogous federal laws and were argued by the same attorney David Cole. The majority cites the closely-related case Spence v. Washington to dismiss the asserted government interest and references Stromberg v. California. A somewhat surprising dissent by Justice Stevens relies upon the unique nature of the interest at stake to disagree with Brennan's majority. It invalidated the conviction of a man fined $2000 and sentenced a year in prison, much to the dismay of Rehnquist, whose dissent quotes from "Barbara Fritchie" and the "Concord Hymn." FTP, name this 1989 case which upheld the protected nature of flag burning.
One dissent in this case attacks the majority for acting "as a Platonic guardian admonishing those responsible for public opinion as if they were truant schoolchildren.
{Texas v. Johnson}