A state statute makes it a crime to "treat contemptuously or knowingly destroy, deface, or burn a United States flag in a manner likely to offend others." During a political demonstration, Dale burns his privately owned American flag on the public sidewalk to protest government policies. He is arrested and charged under the statute. Which of the following best describes the constitutionality of the statute as applied to Dale's conduct?
The statute is constitutional because the state has a compelling interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity.
The statute is constitutional if Dale burned the flag on public property without first obtaining a permit.
The statute is constitutional because the state may prohibit destruction of the flag to prevent breaches of the peace.
The statute is unconstitutional because flag burning is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, and prohibiting it is a content-based restriction that cannot withstand strict scrutiny.
Flag burning to express disagreement with government policy is symbolic political speech. Under Texas v. Johnson, the Court held that laws aimed at protecting the flag's symbolic meaning are content-based restrictions on expression and must satisfy the most exacting (strict) scrutiny, which they fail. The asserted governmental interests in preserving the flag as a symbol or preventing breaches of the peace are not sufficiently compelling or narrowly tailored when the conduct is peaceful. Therefore, the statute is unconstitutional as applied to Dale.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is symbolic speech and how does it differ from regular speech?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does the term 'strict scrutiny' mean in legal contexts?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What was the significance of the Supreme Court case *Texas v. Johnson*?