Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397; 109 S. Ct. 2533; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3115 (U.S. 1989)

(Footnotes are at the end of the opinion)


Dissent: C. J. Rehnquist, (White, O'Connor)

In holding this Texas statute unconstitutional, the Court ignores JusticeHolmes' familiar aphorism that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic."New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921). For more than 200 years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our Nation, a uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here.

At the time of the American Revolution, the flag served to unify the
Thirteen Colonies at home, while obtaining recognition of national sovereignty
abroad. Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Concord Hymn" describes the first skirmishes of
the Revolutionary War in these lines:

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood Their flag to April's
breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood And fired the shot heard round the world."

During that time, there were many colonial and regimental flags, adorned with such symbols as pine trees, beavers, anchors, and rattlesnakes, bearing slogans such as "Liberty or Death," "Hope," "An Appeal to Heaven," and "Don't Tread onMe." The first distinctive flag of the Colonies was the "Grand Union Flag" -- with 13 stripes and a British flag in the left corner -- which was flown for the first time on January 2, 1776, by troops of the Continental Army around Boston. By June 14, 1777, after we declared our independence from England, the Continental Congress resolved:

"That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white: that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation." 8 Journal of the Continental Congress 1774-1789, p. 464 (W. Ford ed. 1907).

One immediate result of the flag's adoption was that American vessels
harassing British shipping sailed under an authorized national flag. Without
such a flag, the British could treat captured seamen as pirates and hang them summarily; with a national flag, such seamen were treated as prisoners of war.

During the War of 1812, British naval forces sailed up Chesapeake
Bay and marched overland to sack and burn the city of Washington. They then
sailed up the Patapsco River to invest the city of Baltimore, but to do so it
was first necessary to reduce Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor. Francis Scott
Key, a Washington lawyer, had been granted permission by the British to board
one of their warships to negotiate the release of an American who had been taken
prisoner. That night, waiting anxiously on the British ship, Key watched the British fleet firing on Fort McHenry. Finally, at daybreak, he saw the fort's American flag still flying; the British attack had failed. Intensely moved, he began to scribble on the back of an envelope the poem that became our national anthem:

"O say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes & bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free & the home of the brave?"

The American flag played a central role in our Nation's most tragic
conflict, when the North fought against the South. The lowering of the American
flag at Fort Sumter was viewed as the start of the war. G. Preble, History of
the Flag of the United States of America 453 (1880). The Southern States, to
formalize their separation from the Union, adopted the "Stars and Bars" of the
Confederacy. The Union troops marched to the sound of "Yes We'll Rally Round
The Flag Boys, We'll Rally Once Again." President Abraham Lincoln refused proposals to remove from the American flag the stars representing the rebel States, because he considered the conflict not a war between two nations but an attack by 11 States against the National Government. Id., at 411. By war's end, the American flag again flew over "an indestructible union, composed of indestructible states." Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 725 (1869).

One of the great stories of the Civil War is told in John Greenleaf Whittier's poem, "Barbara Frietchie":

"Up from the meadows rich with corn,
Clear in the cool September morn,
The clustered spires of Frederick stand
Green-walled by the hills of Maryland.
Round about them orchards sweep,
Apple- and peach-tree fruited deep,
Fair as a garden of the Lord
To the eyes of the famished rebel horde,
On that pleasant morn of the early fall
When Lee marched over the mountain wall, --
Over the mountains winding down,
Horse and foot, into Frederick town.
Forty flags with their silver stars,
Forty flags with their crimson bars,
Flapped in the morning wind: the sun
Of noon looked down, and saw not one.
Up rose old Barbara Frietchie then,
Bowed with her fourscore years and ten;
Bravest of all in Frederick town,
She took up the flag the men hauled down;
In her attic-window the staff she set,
To show that one heart was loyal yet.
Up the street came the rebel tread,
Stonewall Jackson riding ahead.
Under his slouched hat left and right
He glanced: the old flag met his sight.
'Halt!' -- the dust-brown ranks stood fast.
'Fire!' -- out blazed the rifle-blast.
It shivered the window, pane and sash;
It rent the banner with seam and gash.
Quick, as it fell, from the broken staff
Dame Barbara snatched the silken scarf;
She leaned far out on the window-sill,
And shook it forth with a royal will.
'Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag, ' she said.
A shade of sadness, a blush of shame,
Over the face of the leader came;
The nobler nature within him stirred
To life at that woman's deed and word:
'Who touches a hair of yon gray head
Dies like a dog! March on!' he said.
All day long through Frederick street
Sounded the tread of marching feet:
All day long that free flag tost
Over the heads of the rebel host.
Ever its torn folds rose and fell
On the loyal winds that loved it well;
And through the hill-gaps sunset light
Shone over it with a warm good-night.
Barbara Frietchie's work is o'er,
And the Rebel rides on his raids no more.
Honor to her! and let a tear
Fall, for her sake, on Stonewall's bier.
Over Barbara Frietchie's grave,
Flag of Freedom and Union, wave!
Peace and order and beauty draw
Round thy symbol of light and law;
And ever the stars above look down
On thy stars below in Frederick town!"

In the First and Second World Wars, thousands of our countrymen died on
foreign soil fighting for the American cause. At Iwo Jima in the
Second World War, United States Marines fought hand to hand against thousands
of Japanese. By the time the Marines reached the top of Mount
Suribachi, they raised a piece of pipe upright and from one end fluttered a
flag. That ascent had cost nearly 6,000 American lives. The Iwo Jima
Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery memorializes that event. President
Franklin Roosevelt authorized the use of the flag on labels, packages, cartons, and containers intended for export as lend-lease aid, in order to inform people in other countries of the United States' assistance. Presidential Proclamation No. 2605, 58 Stat. 1126.

During the Korean war, the successful amphibious landing of American troops at Inchon
was marked by the raising of an American flag within an hour of the event. Impetus for the enactment of the Federal Flag Desecration Statute in1967 came from the impact of flag burnings in the United States on troopmorale in Vietnam. Representative L. Mendel Rivers, then Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, testified that "[t]he burning of the flag . . . has
caused my mail to increase 100 percent from the boys in Vietnam,writingme and asking me what is going on in America." Desecration of theFlag, Hearings on H. R. 271 before Subcommittee No. 4 of the House Committeeon the Judiciary, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 189 (1967). Representative Charles
Wiggins stated: "The public act of desecration of our flag tends to undermine
the morale of American troops. That this finding is true can be attested by many Members who have received correspondence from servicemen expressing their shock and disgust of such conduct." 113 Cong. Rec. 16459 (1967).

The flag symbolizes the Nation in peace as well as in war. It signifies
our national presence on battleships, airplanes, military installations, and
public buildings from the United States Capitol to the thousands of county
courthouses and city halls throughout the country. Two flags are prominently
placed in our courtroom. Countless flags are placed by the graves of loved ones each year on what was first called Decoration Day, and is now called Memorial Day. The flag is traditionally placed on the casket of deceased members of the Armed Forces, and it is later given to the deceased's family. 10 U. S. C. @@ 1481, 1482. [***52] Congress has provided that the flag be flown at half-staff upon the death of the President, Vice President, and other government officials "as a mark of respect to their memory." 36 U. S. C. @ 175(m). The flag identifies United States merchant ships, 22 U. S. C. @ 454, and "[t]he laws of the Union protect our commerce wherever the flag of the country may float." United States v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284, 309 (1855).
No other American symbol has been as universally honored as the flag. In 1931, Congress declared "The Star-Spangled Banner" to be our national anthem. 36 U. S. C. @ 170. In 1949, Congress declared June 14th to be Flag
Day. @ 157. In 1987, John Philip Sousa's "The Stars and Stripes Forever" was
designated as the national march. Pub. L. 101-186, 101 Stat. 1286. Congress
has also established "The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag" and the manner of its deliverance. 36 U. S. C. @ 172. The flag has appeared as the principal symbol on approximately 33 United States postal stamps and in the design of at least 43 more, more times than any other symbol. United States Postal Service, Definitive Mint Set 15 (1988).

Both Congress and the States have enacted numerous laws regulating misuse of the American flag. Until 1967, Congress left the regulation of misuse of the flag up to the States. Now, however, 18 U. S. C. @ 700(a) provides that:

"Whoever knowingly casts contempt upon any flag of the United States by
publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it shall be
fined not more than $ 1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both."
Congress has also prescribed, inter alia, detailed rules for the design of the
flag, 4 U. S. C. @ 1, the time and occasion of flag's display,
36 U. S. C. @ 174, the position and manner of [*428] its display, @
175, respect for the flag, @ 176, and conduct during hoisting, lowering, and
passing of the flag, @ 177. With the exception of Alaska and Wyoming, all of
the States now have statutes prohibiting the burning of the flag. n1 Most of
the state statutes are patterned after the Uniform Flag Act of 1917,
which in @ 3 provides: "No person shall publicly mutilate, deface,
defile, defy, trample upon, or by word or act cast contempt upon any such
flag, standard, color, ensign or shield." Proceedings of National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws 323-324 (1917). Most were passed by the
States at about the time of World War I. Rosenblatt, Flag Desecration Statutes: History and Analysis, 1972 Wash. U. L. Q. 193, 197.

The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our
history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not
represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent
any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or
"point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions
and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless
of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I
cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the
laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag.

More than 80 years ago in Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (1907), this Court upheld the constitutionality of a Nebraska statute that forbade the use of representations of the American flag for advertising purposes upon articles of merchandise. The Court there said:
"For that flag every true American has not simply an appreciation but a deep affection. . . . Hence, it has often occurred that insults to a flag have been the cause of war, and indignities put upon it, in the presence of those who revere it, have often been resented and sometimes punished on the spot." Id., at 41.

Only two Terms ago, in San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v.
United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987), the Court held that
Congress could grant exclusive use of the word "Olympic" to the United States
Olympic Committee. The Court thought that this "restrictio[n] on expressive
speech properly [was] characterized as incidental to the primary congressional
purpose of encouraging and rewarding the USOC's activities." Id., at
536. As the Court stated, "when a word [or symbol] acquires value 'as the result
of organization and the expenditure of labor, skill, and money' by an entity, that entity constitutionally may obtain a limited property right in the word [or symbol]." Id., at 532, quoting International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 239 (1918). Surely Congress or the States may recognize a similar interest in the flag.

But the Court insists that the Texas statute prohibiting the public burning of the American flag infringes on respondent Johnson's freedom of expression. Such freedom, of course, is not absolute. See Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). In Chaplinsky v.
New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), a unanimous Court said:

"Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute
at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and
narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have
never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd
and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." Id., at 571-572 (footnotes omitted).
The Court upheld Chaplinsky's conviction under a state statute that made it
unlawful to "address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any person who
is lawfully in any street or other public place." Id., at 569.
Chaplinsky had told a local marshal, "'"You are a God damned racketeer" and a
"damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of
Fascists."'" Ibid.
Here it may equally well be said that the public burning of the American
flag by Johnson was no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and at the
same time it had a tendency to incite a breach of the peace. Johnson was free
to make any verbal denunciation of the flag that he wished; indeed, he was
free to burn the flag in private. He could publicly burn other
symbols of the Government or effigies of political leaders. He did lead a march
through the streets of Dallas, and conducted a rally in front of the Dallas City
Hall. He engaged in a "die-in" to protest nuclear weapons. He shouted out
various slogans during the march, including: "Reagan, Mondale which
will it be? Either one means World War III"; "Ronald Reagan, killer of the
hour, Perfect example of U. S. power"; and "red, white and blue, we spit on you,
you stand for plunder, you will go under." Brief for Respondent 3. For none of
these acts was he arrested or prosecuted; it was only when he proceeded to burn
publicly an American flag stolen from its rightful owner that he violated the Texas statute.
The Court could not, and did not, say that Chaplinsky's utterances were not
expressive phrases -- they clearly and succinctly conveyed an extremely low
opinion of the addressee. The same may be said of Johnson's public
burning of the flag in this case; it obviously did convey Johnson's bitter
dislike of his country. But his act, like Chaplinsky's provocative words,
conveyed nothing that could not have been conveyed and was not conveyed just as
forcefully in a dozen different ways. As with "fighting words," so with flag burning, for purposes of the First Amendment: It is "no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and [is] of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [it] is clearly outweighed" by the public interest in avoiding a probable breach of the peace. The highest courts of several States have upheld state statutes prohibiting the public burning of the flag on the grounds that it is so inherently inflammatory that it may cause a breach of public order. See, e. g., State v. Royal, 113 N. H. 224, 229, 305 A. 2d 676, 680 (1973);
State v. Waterman, 190 N. W. 2d 809, 811-812 (Iowa 1971); see also State v. Mitchell, 32 Ohio App. 2d 16, 30, 288 N. E. 2d 216, 226 (1972).
The result of the Texas statute is obviously to deny one in
Johnson's frame of mind one of many means of "symbolic speech." Far from being
a case of "one picture being worth a thousand words," flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that, it seems fair to say, is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others. Only five years ago we said in City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 812 (1984), that "the First Amendment does
not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of
communication at all times and in all places." The Texas statute deprived
Johnson of only one rather inarticulate symbolic form of protest -- a form of
protest that was profoundly offensive to many -- and left him with a full
panoply of other symbols and every conceivable form of verbal expression to
express his deep disapproval of national policy. Thus, in no way can it be said
that Texas is punishing him because his hearers -- or any other group of
people -- were profoundly opposed to the message that he sought to convey. Such
opposition is no proper basis for restricting speech or expression under the
First Amendment. It was Johnson's use of this particular symbol, and not the
idea that he sought to convey by it or by his many other expressions, for which
he was punished.
Our prior cases dealing with flag desecration statutes have left open the
question that the Court resolves today. In Street v. New York, 394
U.S. 576, 579 (1969), the defendant burned a flag in the street, shouting "We
don't need no damned flag" and "[i]f they let that happen to Meredith we don't
need an American flag. " The Court ruled that since the defendant
might have been convicted solely on the basis of his words, the conviction could
not stand, but it expressly reserved the question whether a defendant could constitutionally be convicted for burning the flag. Id., at 581.
Chief Justice Warren, in dissent, stated: "I believe that the States and Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace. . . . [I]t is difficult for me to imagine that, had the Court faced this issue, it would have concluded otherwise."
Id., at 605. Justices Black and Fortas also expressed their personal
view that a prohibition on flag burning did not violate the Constitution. See
id., at 610 (Black, J., dissenting) ("It passes my belief that
anything in the Federal Constitution bars a State from making the deliberate
burning of the American Flag an offense"); id., at 615-617 (Fortas,
J., dissenting) ("[T]he States and the Federal Government have the power to
protect the flag from acts of desecration committed in public. . . . [T]he
flag is a special kind of personality. Its use is traditionally
and universally subject to special rules and regulation. . . . A person may
'own' a flag, but ownership is subject to special burdens and
responsibilities. A flag may be property, in a sense; but it is property
burdened with peculiar obligations and restrictions. Certainly . . . these
special conditions are not per se arbitrary or beyond governmental power under
our Constitution").
In Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974), the Court reversed the
conviction of a college student who displayed the flag with a peace symbol
affixed to it by means of removable black tape from the window of his apartment.
Unlike the instant case, there was no risk of a breach of the peace, no one
other than the arresting officers saw the flag, and the defendant owned the
flag in question. The Court concluded that the student's conduct was
protected under the First Amendment, because "no interest the State may have in
preserving the physical integrity of a privately owned flag was significantly impaired on these facts." Id., at 415. The Court was careful to note, however, that the defendant "was not charged under the desecration statute, nor did he permanently disfigure the flag or destroy it." Ibid.
In another related case, Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974), the
appellee, who wore a small flag on the seat of his trousers, was convicted
under a Massachusetts flag -misuse statute that subjected to criminal liability
anyone who "publicly . . . treats contemptuously the flag of the
United States." Id., at 568-569. The Court affirmed the lower court's
reversal of appellee's conviction, because the phrase "treats contemptuously"
was unconstitutionally broad and vague. Id., at 576. The Court was
again careful to point out that "[c]ertainly nothing prevents a legislature from
defining with substantial specificity what constitutes forbidden treatment of
United States flags. " Id., at 581-582. See also id., at 587
(White, J., concurring in judgment) ("The flag is a national property, and the
Nation may regulate those who would make, imitate, sell, possess, or use it. I
would not question those statutes which proscribe mutilation,
defacement, or burning of the flag or which otherwise protect its physical
integrity, without regard to whether such conduct might provoke violence. . . .
There would seem to be little question about the power of Congress to forbid the
mutilation of the Lincoln Memorial. . . . The flag is itself a monument, subject to similar protection"); id., at 591 (Blackmun, J., dissenting)
("Goguen's punishment was constitutionally permissible for harming the physical
integrity of the flag by wearing it affixed to the seat of his pants").
But the Court today will have none of this. The uniquely deep awe and
respect for our flag felt by virtually all of us are bundled off under the
rubric of "designated symbols," ante, at 417, that the First Amendment prohibits
the government from "establishing." But the government has not "established"
this feeling; 200 years of history have done that. The government is simply recognizing as a fact the profound regard for the American flag created by that history when it enacts statutes prohibiting the disrespectful public burning of the flag.
The Court concludes its opinion with a regrettably patronizing
civics lecture, presumably addressed to the Members of both Houses of Congress,
the members of the 48 state legislatures that enacted prohibitions against flag burning, and the troops fighting under that flag in Vietnam who objected to its being burned: "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." Ante, at 419. The Court's role as
the final expositor of the Constitution is well established, but its role as a
Platonic guardian admonishing those responsible to public opinion as if they
were truant schoolchildren has no similar place in our system of
government. The cry of "no taxation without representation" animated those who
revolted against the English Crown to found our Nation -- the idea that those who submitted to government should have some say as to what kind of laws would be passed. Surely one of the high purposes of a democratic society is to legislate against conduct that is regarded as evil and profoundly offensive to the majority of people -- whether it be murder, embezzlement, pollution, or flag burning.
Our Constitution wisely places limits on powers of legislative
majorities to act, but the declaration of such limits by this Court "is, at all
times, a question of much delicacy, which ought seldom, if ever, to be decided
in the affirmative, in a doubtful case." Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 128
(1810) (Marshall, C. J.). Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to
the burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which
organized governments are instituted. The Court decides that the American
flag is just another symbol, about which not only must opinions pro and con be
tolerated, but for which the most minimal public respect may not be enjoined.
The government may conscript men into the Armed Forces where they must fight and
perhaps die for the flag, but the government may not prohibit the public
burning of the banner under which they fight. I would uphold the Texas statute
as applied in this case. n2
Footnotes
n1See Ala. Code @ 13A-11-12 (1982); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. @ 13-3703 (1978);
Ark. Code Ann. @ 5-51-207 (1987); Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code Ann. @ 614 (West 1988);
Colo. Rev. Stat. @ 18-11-204 (1986); Conn. Gen. Stat. @ 53-258a (1985); Del.
Code Ann., Tit. 11, @ 1331 (1987); Fla. Stat. @@ 256.05-256.051, 876.52 (1987);
Ga. Code Ann. @ 50-3-9 (1986); Haw. Rev. Stat. @ 711-1107 (1988); Idaho Code @
18-3401 (1987); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 1, paras. 3307, 3351 (1980); Ind. Code @ 35-45-1-4 (1986); Iowa Code @ 32.1 (1978 and Supp. 1989); Kan. Stat. Ann. @ 21-4114 (1988); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. @ 525.110 (Michie Supp. 1988); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. @ 14:116 (West 1986); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 1, @ 254 (1979); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, @ 83 (1988); Mass. Gen. Laws @@ 264, 265 (1987); Mich. Comp.Laws @ 750.246 (1968); Minn. Stat. @ 609.40 (1987); Miss. Code Ann. @ 97-7-39 (1973); Mo. Rev. Stat. @ 578.095 (Supp. 1989); Mont. Code Ann. @ 45-8-215 (1987); Neb. Rev. Stat. @ 28-928 (1985); Nev. Rev. Stat. @ 201.290 (1986); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. @ 646.1 (1986); N. J. Stat. Ann. @ 2C:33-9 (West 1982); N. M. Stat. Ann. @ 30-21-4 (1984); N. Y. Gen. Bus. Law @ 136 (McKinney 1988); N. C. Gen. Stat. @ 14-381 (1986); N. D. Cent. Code @ 12.1-07-02 (1985); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. @ 2927.11 (1987); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, @ 372 (1983); Ore. Rev. Stat. @ 166.075 (1987); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. @ 2102 (1983); R. I. Gen. Laws @ 11-15-2
(1981); S. C. Code @@ 16-17-220, 16-17-230 (1985 and Supp. 1988); S. D. Codified
Laws @ 22-9-1 (1988); Tenn. Code Ann. @@ 39-5-843, 39-5-847 (1982); Tex. Penal Code Ann. @ 42.09 (1974); Utah Code Ann. @ 76-9-601 (1978); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit.13, @ 1903 (1974); Va. Code @ 18.2-488 (1988); Wash. Rev. Code @ 9.86.030 (1988); W. Va. Code @ 61-1-8 (1989); Wis. Stat. @ 946.05 (1985-1986).

n2 In holding that the Texas statute as applied to Johnson violates the First Amendment, the Court does not consider Johnson's claims that the statute is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Brief for Respondent 24-30. I think those claims are without merit. In New York State Club Assn. v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 11 (1988), we stated that a facial challenge is only proper under the First Amendment when a statute can never be applied in a permissible manner or when, even if it may be validly applied to a particular defendant, it is so broad as to reach the protected speech of third parties.While Tex. Penal Code Ann. @ 42.09 (1989) "may not satisfy those intent onfinding fault at any cost, [it is] set out in terms that the ordinary personexercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with."CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 579 (1973). By defining "desecrate" as "deface," "damage" or otherwise "physically mistreat" in a manner that the actor knows will "seriously offend" others, @ 42.09 only prohibits flagrant acts of physical abuse and destruction of the flag of the sort at issue here -- soaking a flag with lighter fluid and igniting it in public -- and not any of the examples of improper flag etiquette cited in respondent's brief.