Question
Which of the following correctly explains how the Supreme Court's decisions in Texas v.
Johnson and United States v. Elchman contributed to the right of freedom of speech? (1 point)
Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest.
Both decisions protected participants in the civil rights movement from being punished for their civil disobedience.
• Both cases ruled that flag burning could be outlawed in places it was considered offensive.
• Both decisions involved selective incorporation requiring states to protect freedom of speech.
Johnson and United States v. Elchman contributed to the right of freedom of speech? (1 point)
Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest.
Both decisions protected participants in the civil rights movement from being punished for their civil disobedience.
• Both cases ruled that flag burning could be outlawed in places it was considered offensive.
• Both decisions involved selective incorporation requiring states to protect freedom of speech.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The correct explanation is: **Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest.**
In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag as a form of protest is protected by the First Amendment as symbolic speech. This decision reinforced the concept that expressive conduct, such as flag burning, is within the realm of speech protected by the Constitution. The case of United States v. Elchman isn’t as widely recognized, but if it involves similar considerations of symbolic speech, it would also pertain to the broader theme of protecting forms of protest expression. However, if you meant to refer to "United States v. Eichman" (1990), that case reaffirmed the ruling in Texas v. Johnson, further solidifying the protection of flag burning as a form of symbolic speech.
In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that burning the American flag as a form of protest is protected by the First Amendment as symbolic speech. This decision reinforced the concept that expressive conduct, such as flag burning, is within the realm of speech protected by the Constitution. The case of United States v. Elchman isn’t as widely recognized, but if it involves similar considerations of symbolic speech, it would also pertain to the broader theme of protecting forms of protest expression. However, if you meant to refer to "United States v. Eichman" (1990), that case reaffirmed the ruling in Texas v. Johnson, further solidifying the protection of flag burning as a form of symbolic speech.