The Constitution's Symbolic Speech: Where Is It?

Symbolic speech, a legal term in United States law, refers to nonverbal forms of expression that convey messages or ideas, often related to political or social issues. The First Amendment's free speech protection extends to symbolic speech or expressive conduct. While the First Amendment does not explicitly mention symbolic speech, it is recognised as being protected under it. The Supreme Court has explored the complexities surrounding symbolic speech, examining its protections under the First Amendment on a case-by-case basis.

Explore related products

Symbol Formation

$69.99 $190

The First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)

$326

1st First Amendment U.S. Constitution Patriot T-Shirt

$15.99

Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment

$14.29 $20

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99

A Short & Happy Guide to the First Amendment (Short & Happy Guides)

$28

Symbolic speech is a legal term in United States law

The Supreme Court has explored the legal complexities surrounding symbolic speech and its protections under the First Amendment on a case-by-case basis. One of the earliest cases involving symbolic speech was Stromberg v. California (1931), where the Court struck down a California law that banned the display of red flags during the Red Scare of 1919. The Court ruled that forbidding the display of emblems used to express peaceful and orderly opposition to the government violated the First Amendment.

Another notable case is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), where students challenged their suspension for wearing black armbands to symbolise opposition to the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court affirmed that public school restrictions on speech must be based on reasons beyond merely avoiding discomfort with unpopular viewpoints.

In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court affirmed flag burning as a type of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, rejecting the assumption that preserving the flag as a symbol of unity outweighed First Amendment protections. However, not all symbolic actions receive the same level of protection. For instance, in United States v. O'Brien (1968), the Court upheld that the burning of draft cards was not protected under free speech due to the government's interest in maintaining an effective draft system.

The O'Brien test, developed in this case, provides a framework for determining when the regulation of symbolic speech violates the First Amendment. It considers whether a law is within the constitutional power of the government, furthers a substantial government interest, is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and is the least restrictive means regarding free speech. While the O'Brien test has been applied in several cases, it has also faced criticism and been deemed inappropriate in certain contexts, particularly those involving flag burning.

Symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment

Symbolic speech is a form of nonverbal and nonwritten communication that includes activities such as flag burning, wearing armbands, burning draft cards, picketing, marching, distributing leaflets, and door-to-door solicitation. It is generally protected by the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech." This protection extends to symbolic speech unless it poses a direct threat to another individual or public order.

The Supreme Court has recognised symbolic speech as a protected form of expression, even though it may be more regulated than traditional speech due to its inclusion of conduct or action. The Court has ruled on several landmark cases that have shaped the understanding of symbolic speech under the First Amendment.

One notable case is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), where the Court upheld the First Amendment rights of students who wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The Court affirmed that public school restrictions on speech must be based on reasons beyond merely avoiding discomfort with unpopular viewpoints.

Another significant case is Texas v. Johnson (1989), where the Court affirmed flag burning as a type of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. The Court rejected the notion that preserving the flag as a symbol of unity outweighed First Amendment protections, stating that public outrage alone does not justify suppressing free expression.

The O'Brien test, established in United States v. O'Brien (1968), provides a framework for determining when the regulation of symbolic speech violates the First Amendment. The test considers whether a law is within the constitutional power of the government, furthers a substantial government interest, is unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and is the least restrictive means regarding free speech.

In conclusion, symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment as a form of expressive conduct. While it may be regulated to maintain public order and prevent direct threats, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to engage in symbolic speech as a fundamental aspect of free expression in the United States.

The Supreme Court's first symbolic speech case was Stromberg v. California (1931)

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to free speech. This protection extends to symbolic speech or expressive conduct. Symbolic speech is a form of nonverbal, nonwritten communication that can include activities such as flag burning, wearing armbands, displaying flags, and burning draft cards. While the First Amendment protects symbolic speech, it is not absolute, and certain restrictions may be imposed in specific circumstances.

Stromberg appealed her conviction, arguing that it violated her right to free speech under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled 7-2 that Stromberg's conviction infringed on the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion, clarifying that the free speech clause of the First Amendment was one of the liberties protected from interference by the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court's decision in Stromberg v. California set an important precedent, recognizing that certain forms of nonverbal expressive conduct, such as waving a red flag, are protected by the First Amendment. This case established that the government cannot prohibit people from engaging in symbolic speech as a form of political expression, as long as it does not incite violence or pose a direct threat to public order.

Explore related products

First Amendment: [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$240.9 $308

First Amendment Law (University Casebook Series)

$252

First Amendment Free Speech Freedom of the Press T-Shirt

$18.99

Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful

$18.89 $32.99

1st First Amendment U.S. Constitution Patriot US History T-Shirt

$17.76

Your Freedom, Your Power: A Kid's Guide to the First Amendment

$14.16 $16.99

The O'Brien test is used to determine when the regulation of symbolic speech violates the First Amendment

The First Amendment's free speech protection generally extends to symbolic speech or expressive conduct. Symbolic speech consists of nonverbal, nonwritten forms of communication, such as flag burning, wearing armbands, and burning draft cards. It is generally protected by the First Amendment unless it poses a specific, direct threat to an individual or public order.

The O'Brien test, established in the United States v. O'Brien case in 1968, is a four-part test used to determine when the regulation of symbolic speech violates the First Amendment. The test was created by the Supreme Court to assess when a law restricting symbolic speech is constitutional. The four parts of the test are:

• Is the law within the constitutional power of the government?
• Does the law further a substantial or important government interest?
• Is the interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression?
• Is this regulation the least restrictive means with regard to free speech?

The O'Brien test has been applied in several cases involving symbolic speech, including those dealing with the destruction of draft cards and wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War. However, it is important to note that the O'Brien test has not been deemed appropriate in every symbolic speech case, particularly those involving flag burning. In such cases, the Supreme Court has highlighted the importance of considering the government's interest in regulating flag burning and whether it is directly related to the suppression of free expression.

Symbolic speech consists of nonverbal, nonwritten forms of communication

Symbolic speech is a form of expressive conduct that is generally protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits Congress from passing laws that infringe on the right to free speech. While the First Amendment does not explicitly mention symbolic speech, Supreme Court interpretations have extended free speech protection to symbolic speech or expressive conduct.

Symbolic speech consists of nonverbal and nonwritten forms of communication that convey a message or express a viewpoint. It includes activities such as flag burning, wearing armbands, burning draft cards, picketing, marching, distributing leaflets, door-to-door solicitation, and sit-ins or stand-ins. These actions are considered symbolic because they use symbols or actions to communicate a meaning beyond the immediate act itself. For example, burning a flag is not just an act of destruction but a symbolic expression of protest or disagreement with the values the flag represents.

Nonverbal symbolic communication differs from nonverbal communication (NVC) in that it involves learned and socially shared signal systems. It relies on context, gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and physical proximity to convey specific meanings. For instance, a wave or a peace sign are universally recognised gestures that convey greeting or farewell without the use of words.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in defining the boundaries of symbolic speech through landmark cases such as Texas v. Johnson (1989) and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). In Texas v. Johnson, the Court affirmed flag burning as a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, despite its offensive nature, as it fell within the scope of free expression. Similarly, in Tinker v. Des Moines, the Court upheld the right of students to wear black armbands as a symbolic protest against the Vietnam War, striking down the school district's policy as a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The O'Brien test, established in United States v. O'Brien, provides a framework for determining when the regulation of symbolic speech violates the First Amendment. According to this test, a government regulation is justified if it meets certain criteria, including being within the constitutional power of the government, furthering a substantial government interest, being unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and being the least restrictive means regarding free speech. However, the O'Brien test has faced criticism and has not been applied uniformly in all symbolic speech cases, particularly those involving flag burning.

Frequently asked questions