What is symbolic speech

Love words? Need even more definitions? Homophones, Homographs, and Homonyms The same, but different. Merriam-Webster's Words of the Week - Nov.

Ask the Editors 'Everyday' vs. What Is 'Semantic Bleaching'? How 'literally' can mean "figuratively". Literally How to use a word that literally drives some pe Is Singular 'They' a Better Choice? Legislation first appeared in the late nineteenth century, during a period of tumult as waves of immigration brought new arrivals.

Fearful of change, the expanding nation regarded its flag protectively. In , Congress considered a law proposing a ban on the flag in advertising, ultimately rejecting it because politicians wanted to use it in their own campaigns. Two decades later, protective measures were encouraged by organizations such as the American Flag Association, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the hate group, the Ku Klux Klan. The actions of such would-be protectors of tradition begged the question: what did the nation's flag need to be protected against?

Pennsylvania's law making it a crime to damage the flag started a trend that would continue for thirty years.

One by one, states added their own anti-desecration laws, as well as others banning the commercial use of the flag or the flying of other flags. In reality, there was no frequent attack upon the American flag, and, in any case, there did not have to be. Influencing these laws were the great upheavals of the early twentieth century. World War I and its aftermath saw the rise of political dissent and a harsh official reaction against it. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia produced the first so-called Red Scare in the United States, as local, state, and federal authorities hunted down, jailed, and deported suspected radicals, deemed "Reds" in a disparaging reference to the color of the Communist flag.

During this time, Congress passed an anti-desecration law applying to the District of Columbia. While lawmakers were busy trying to protect the flag, the Supreme Court gradually moved in another direction.

Its earliest opinion gave little sign of how far it would go. Halter v. Nebraska held that a state could ban flag use in advertising, thus stopping a company from displaying the flag on its beer containers. The decision was made on the basis of property rights, however, rather than freedom of speech because, at this point in history, federal courts did not apply a constitutional test for speech rights to state cases.

That situation changed only a few years later in Gitlow v. New York , the landmark decision which began extending the First Amendment's protections to the states. As subsequent cases took this expansion further, states, accustomed to controlling speech as they saw fit, would face court challenges to their laws.

Perhaps coincidentally, one of the first and most important challenges concerned a state flag law. Dating to , California's ban on displaying a red-colored flag was a product of the Red Scare, when lawmakers were anxious to protect citizens from anarchy and radicalism.

One decade later, in , such passions had hardly subsided. The Better American Federation, a citizen group, had convinced local police to raid a summer camp for working class children that was run by several groups, including Communists.

Finding a red flag, police arrested staff members and a part-time teacher, Yetta Stromberg, who was later convicted. On appeal to the U. Supreme Court in Stromberg v.

California , she argued that the state law prohibited the symbol of a legal political party. The Court's decision in her favor concluded that the statute was vague and interfered with constitutionally-protected speech.

Dramatically, the Court for the first time ruled that a state law violated the First Amendment. And it held that a form of non-verbal speech -- displaying a flag -- enjoyed constitutional protection, too. By the s, wartime passions brought a new legal reaction. Flag saluting and recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance were seen by many as proof of patriotism. Des Moine , the Court ruled that wearing armbands was a protected form of symbolic speech. Burning a cross can be protected symbolic speech, but in some cases, it is not protected.

According to the Supreme Court case Virginia vs. If it were ruled as such, the cross burning would not be protected under the First Amendment. Freedom of expression and symbolic speech are important civil rights , allowing people to express dissent in a powerful way that does not include words. Being able to express oneself freely is an important way to protest about social issues and government actions, and symbolic speech is one way to do it.

All rights reserved. Examples and Significance. What Is Symbolic Speech? The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When the symbolic speech defies or appears to defy a law, the court asks these four questions: Is the law governing the act within the power of the government? Does the law governing the act further an important interest of the government? Is the government interest unrelated to the suppression of the freedom of expression? Is the law the least restrictive means of regulation in regards to freedom of expression?