Texas v. Johnson addressed flag desecration. What was the Court's position?

Texas v. Johnson addressed flag desecration. What was the Court's position?

• A. Flag burning is illegal under all circumstances.
• B. Symbolic speech protected, including flag desecration as protest.
• C. The First Amendment does not apply to acts of protest.
• D. The government may ban all political symbolism.

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. The Court ruled that burning the flag as a form of political protest communicates a message and therefore counts as protected expressive conduct. A law that makes flag desecration a crime targets a specific form of expression tied to a viewpoint, so it cannot stand unless it passes strict scrutiny and serves a compelling interest with narrowly tailored means. In Texas v. Johnson, the statute criminalizing flag desecration was struck down because it punished the message rather than regulating conduct in a neutral way. So flag desecration, though controversial, is protected speech. Other choices don’t fit because they imply the government may ban this form of expression or that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to protest, which the Court rejected.

The main idea here is that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. The Court ruled that burning the flag as a form of political protest communicates a message and therefore counts as protected expressive conduct. A law that makes flag desecration a crime targets a specific form of expression tied to a viewpoint, so it cannot stand unless it passes strict scrutiny and serves a compelling interest with narrowly tailored means. In Texas v. Johnson, the statute criminalizing flag desecration was struck down because it punished the message rather than regulating conduct in a neutral way. So flag desecration, though controversial, is protected speech.

Other choices don’t fit because they imply the government may ban this form of expression or that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to protest, which the Court rejected.