The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of flag burning in the case of

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of flag burning in the case of

• A. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
• B. Miller v. California
• C. Texas v. Johnson
• D. Reno v. Johnson

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is how the First Amendment protects symbolic or expressive conduct, not just spoken or written words. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the U.S. flag as a form of political protest is protected speech. The court said a law that criminalized flag desecration targets a specific form of expression and thus restricts what people can say or express, even if the act is offensive to many. Because the government cannot ban a particular way of conveying a political message simply to suppress dissent, the flag-burning act qualifies as expressive conduct and falls under First Amendment protections. The decision emphasizes that the government’s interest in preserving a symbol does not automatically justify prohibiting the way someone expresses dissent, especially when the expression is aimed at communicating a political viewpoint. Other listed cases involve different aspects of speech regulation—fighting words, obscenity, or other domains of speech law—and do not establish the protection for flag desecration as political expression.

The idea being tested is how the First Amendment protects symbolic or expressive conduct, not just spoken or written words. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court ruled that burning the U.S. flag as a form of political protest is protected speech. The court said a law that criminalized flag desecration targets a specific form of expression and thus restricts what people can say or express, even if the act is offensive to many. Because the government cannot ban a particular way of conveying a political message simply to suppress dissent, the flag-burning act qualifies as expressive conduct and falls under First Amendment protections. The decision emphasizes that the government’s interest in preserving a symbol does not automatically justify prohibiting the way someone expresses dissent, especially when the expression is aimed at communicating a political viewpoint.

Other listed cases involve different aspects of speech regulation—fighting words, obscenity, or other domains of speech law—and do not establish the protection for flag desecration as political expression.