What type of symbolic speech is protected

These are known as symbolic speech , actions that express specific ideas. Non-verbal symbolic speech is the action clearly conveys a specific message to anyone who sees and reads it. Symbolic speech can take the form of:. Government disapproval cannot be the reason.

But like fighting words, not everything is protected speech. What freedom of speech does not mean is that you can say whatever you want without consequences. The fighting words doctrine includes speech or words that intentionally incite violence or cause distress, are not protected. Slander lying , obscenity, child pornography and obscene gestures are also not protected as free speech. One example of these limits occurred during the Vietnam War.

Students at two Des Moines, Iowa schools decided to wear black armbands to school as a silent protest to the war in Southeast Asia. Once the principals discovered the plan, they warned students that anyone wearing the armbands would be suspended.

Three students were suspended as a result. The students lost on appeal, so they took the case to the Supreme Court. The case of Tinker v.

Symbolic speech is a type of nonverbal communication that takes the form of an action in order to communicate a specific belief. Symbolic speech is protected under the First Amendment of the U. Constitution , but there are some caveats. Requirements for regulations were laid out in the Supreme Court decision, United States v. Symbolic speech has a wide variety of forms and uses. If an action makes a political statement without the use of words, it falls under symbolic speech.

Some of the most common examples of symbolic speech are:. In , United States v. On March 31, , a crowd gathered outside the South Boston Courthouse. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices had to decide if the federal law, which prohibited burning the card, infringed on O'Brien's First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

In a decision delivered by Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court found that symbolic speech, such as burning a draft card, may be regulated if the regulation followed a four-prong test:. The following examples of symbolic speech cases further refined U. In , the California Penal Code banned public displays of red flags, badges, or banners in opposition to the government. The penal code was broken into three parts. Displaying a red flag was prohibited:. Yetta Stromberg was convicted under this code for displaying a red flag at a camp in San Bernardino which had received funding from Communist Organizations.

Stromberg's case was eventually heard at the Supreme Court. The second and third parts of the code were upheld because the state had a countervailing interest in prohibiting acts that incited violence. Stromberg v. California was the first case to include "symbolic speech" or "expressive conduct" under First Amendment protections for freedom of speech. In Tinker v. Des Moines , the Supreme Court addressed whether wearing armbands in protest was protected under the First Amendment. Several students had chosen to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school.

The court held that the school could not restrict the students' speech simply because the students were on the school's property. Speech could only be restricted if it "materially and substantially" interfered with school activities. Armbands were a form of symbolic speech that did not meaningfully interfere with school activities. The court ruled that the school violated the students' freedom of speech when they confiscated the bands and sent the students home.

Washington, U. The Street decision left open the question of whether flag burning per se was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.

After publicly burning the U. Johnson was convicted at trial, but his conviction was reversed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which held that the law violated the First Amendment. On a 5—4 vote, the U. Supreme Court agreed. Nor does the State's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of nationhood and national unity justify his criminal conviction for engaging in political expression.

On the contrary, he stated, "flag burning is the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that … is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others…. The Johnson decision angered conservatives, who called for a constitutional amendment to place flag burning beyond the First Amendment's protection.

When the amendment proposal failed to gain support, Congress passed the federal Flag Protection Act of , Pub. Eichman, U. Many commentators have criticized the way the Supreme Court has treated the symbolic speech area.