Which case protected symbolic political speech, such as flag burning?

• A. United States v. O'Brien
• B. Texas v. Johnson
• C. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
• D. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

Answer: (B)

Symbolic political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and actions that communicate a political message count as speech. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court held that burning the American flag as part of a political protest is protected speech, even though the act is offensive to many. The government cannot criminalize flag desecration solely because its message is controversial or because it uses a revered symbol. The decision emphasizes that expressive conduct communicates ideas, and suppressing a political message because of its content or viewpoint is unconstitutional. The law in that case was struck down because it targeted a specific form of political expression based on its message, not because the act lacked expressive value. For contrast, United States v. O'Brien involved a neutral regulation of conduct and allowed restrictions on symbolic acts under a different test; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire deals with words that are unprotected as “fighting words”; R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul struck down a content-based hate-speech ordinance. The standout principle here is that flag burning as political speech receives First Amendment protection.