Analyze the reason that the Supreme Court found the burning of a flag to be protected free speech as it did in Texas v. Johnson.(1 point)

Question

Responses

This action is legal as long as it is done in a respectful manner in order to dispose of an old flag.
This action is legal as long as it is done in a respectful manner in order to dispose of an old flag.

This action, if done on private property, is within the rights of a private citizen.
This action, if done on private property, is within the rights of a private citizen.

This action is symbolic speech. The action symbolizes a viewpoint.
This action is symbolic speech. The action symbolizes a viewpoint.

This action did not defame or insult anyone. It created no harm.

Answer 1

This action did not defame or insult anyone. It created no harm.

This action is protected under the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech. The burning of the flag is seen as a way to express a particular viewpoint or message. In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court found that Gregory Lee Johnson's act of burning the American flag during a political protest was a protected form of expression. The Court ruled that the act of flag burning, although offensive to some, was a form of expressive conduct and therefore constituted protected speech under the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that the government cannot prohibit expressive conduct simply because it is offensive or disagreeable to society. This ruling reaffirmed the principle that the First Amendment protects even highly controversial and offensive forms of expression, as long as they do not incite immediate lawless action or create a clear and present danger.

Answer 2

what

Answer 3

The reason that the Supreme Court found the burning of a flag to be protected free speech in Texas v. Johnson is because it is considered symbolic speech. The act of burning the flag is seen as a way to express a particular viewpoint or message. The court ruled that this act, although offensive to some, falls under the protection of the First Amendment as a form of expressive conduct. They argued that the government cannot restrict or prohibit expressive conduct simply because it is offensive or disagreeable to society. As long as the act does not incite immediate lawless action or create a clear and present danger, it is considered a protected form of speech. Additionally, the fact that the action did not defame or insult anyone and did not create any harm also played a role in the Supreme Court's decision.