Have you ever noticed how much we communicate without actually talking? If so, then you’ve recognized the power of symbolic speech. It’s all around us, from the logos on our ballcaps to the emojis in our texts. But what exactly is symbolic speech? And why does it matter so much?
In this article, we’ll dive into the fascinating history of symbolic speech. We’ll begin by checking out some landmark cases that have helped define it as a protected form of expression. Then, we’ll explore how it keeps on shaping our society in big and small ways. So, let’s see what all those symbols are really saying!
Understanding Symbolic Speech
Symbolic speech is a form of expressive conduct—in other words, it’s nonverbal, nonwritten communication that conveys a message. For example, wearing a black armband can signify mourning the death of a friend or family member. (Note that, historically, students have also used black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.) Other more extreme examples of symbolic speech include burning a draft card or even burning an American flag.
Generally speaking, the First Amendment protects the right to symbolic speech, just like it protects traditional forms of speech. However, the law doesn’t give a free pass to all types of symbolic speech. When it comes to keeping the peace and ensuring public safety, the government can actually put some limits on it. Over the years, the Supreme Court has had to weigh in on some pretty intense cases that tested the boundaries of this tricky balance.
Supreme Court’s Definition of Symbolic Speech
In order to maintain both freedom and order, the Supreme Court has had to grapple with symbolic speech quite a bit. In landmark cases like Texas v. Johnson and United States v. O’Brien, the Court has defined it as expressive conduct that’s intended to convey a particular message.
However, having a definition for symbolic speech doesn’t make it cut and dry. While symbolic speech is a form of free speech, the government can still regulate symbolic speech if it has a compelling reason to do so. In O’Brien, for example, the Court upheld a law banning the destruction of draft cards because it served a legitimate government interest. But in Johnson, the Court struck down a law banning flag burning, saying it violated the First Amendment.
Find Out Exactly How Much You Could Make As a Paid Speaker
Use The Official Speaker Fee Calculator to tell you what you should charge for your first (or next) speaking gig — virtual or in-person!
Landmark Symbolic Speech Cases
Some of the most famous First Amendment cases in history have revolved around symbolic speech. These cases have helped define the limits of free expression as well as the government’s power to regulate it. They’ve also sparked a lot of heated debate and controversy along the way.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Let’s start with a classic: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Back in 1965, a group of students decided to wear black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. The school district tried to shut it down, but the students sued—and won.
Students across the nation celebrated when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting their symbolic speech under the First Amendment. The decision made it clear that schools cannot censor student expression unless it severely interferes with the educational process, setting a precedent for future student activism and demonstrations.
United States v. O’Brien
On the flip side, there’s United States v. O’Brien. In this case, a man burned his draft card to protest the Vietnam War and was convicted under a federal law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards. He argued that the law violated his First Amendment rights, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that the government had a legitimate interest in preserving the draft system. The ruling was a blow to the anti-war movement, but it also established an important test for evaluating laws that regulate symbolic speech (more on that later).
Texas v. Johnson
Fast forward a couple decades to Texas v. Johnson. In 1984, a man named Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas. He was arrested and convicted under a Texas law banning flag desecration.
However, the Supreme Court overturned his conviction, ruling that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. The Court said that the government can’t prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable. It was a landmark decision that sparked a lot of controversy and debate.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Finally, there’s R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. This case involved a teenager who burned a cross on a black family’s lawn and was charged under a city hate crime ordinance. The ordinance prohibited the display of symbols that arouse “anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.”
In a divisive ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the ordinance, asserting that it violated the First Amendment by penalizing speech based on its content. The justices held that even hate speech is shielded by the Constitution. The government, they argued, cannot pick and choose which speech to ban simply because it finds it offensive. The decision ignited a fierce debate about the balance between free speech and equality.
The O’Brien Test for Symbolic Speech
So how does the Supreme Court decide when the government can regulate symbolic speech? Enter the O’Brien test, named after the landmark United States v. O’Brien case. This four-part test helps courts determine when a law that restricts symbolic speech is constitutional.
Four Parts of the O’Brien Test
When the court evaluates a law, it first considers whether the government has the constitutional power to enact it. Next, it examines if the law promotes a significant government interest. The court then determines whether that interest is separate from the suppression of free expression. Finally, it assesses if the limitation on speech is only what’s necessary to advance the government’s interest.
If a law passes all four parts of the test, then it’s likely the court will uphold it as constitutional. But if it fails any part of the test, then the court may strike it down as a violation of the First Amendment.
Applying the O’Brien Test
Let’s look at a couple examples to see how the O’Brien test works in practice. In the O’Brien case itself, the Supreme Court upheld a law banning the destruction of draft cards because it passed all four parts of the test. The Court said that the law was within Congress’s power to raise and support armies, that it furthered the important government interest of maintaining an efficient draft system, that this interest was unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and that the law was narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
The Court saw things differently in Texas v. Johnson. They decided a law against flag burning couldn’t stand up to the O’Brien test and struck it down. Sure, the government might have wanted to protect the flag as a representation of national unity, but the Court said that reasoning was too intertwined with limiting free expression. In a nutshell, the law was really aiming at a certain kind of symbolic speech because of what it communicated, not because of some other critical government interest.
Limitations on Symbolic Speech
As we’ve seen, symbolic speech is a powerful form of expression protected by the First Amendment. But like all forms of speech, it’s not absolute. There are some limitations on when and how people can engage in symbolic speech, and the government can regulate it in certain cases.
Unprotected Forms of Symbolic Speech
Some forms of symbolic speech are simply not protected by the Constitution at all. These include things like obscenity, defamation, and incitement to violence. So if your symbolic speech crosses the line into one of these categories, you may be out of luck.
For example, in the landmark case of Virginia v. Black, the Supreme Court held that cross burning can be banned if it’s done with the intent to intimidate others. The Court said that while cross burning is a form of symbolic speech, it’s often used as a “true threat” that’s not protected by the First Amendment.
Government Interests in Regulating Symbolic Speech
The O’Brien test comes into play when the government attempts to regulate protected symbolic speech. Courts will evaluate the importance of the government’s interest to determine if it’s substantial enough to validate the constraints placed on this type of communication.
The government can regulate symbolic speech to keep people safe, protect national security, and take care of public property. For instance, they don’t allow burning draft cards because they need a smooth draft process. They also have a say in when, where, and how protests happen to maintain order and safety for everyone.
However, the government can’t regulate symbolic speech just because it doesn’t like the conveyed message. In Texas v. Johnson, the Supreme Court made clear that the government can’t ban flag burning simply because it finds it offensive or disagreeable. The First Amendment protects unpopular and controversial speech just as much as it protects mainstream views.
The line between symbolic speech that’s protected and conduct that isn’t can be pretty thin. Courts have to consider free expression rights alongside other significant government interests, and folks can have different opinions on where that balance lies. But one thing’s for sure: symbolic speech plays a crucial role in our democratic discussions, so we should think twice before trying to limit it.
Free Download: 6 Proven Steps to Book More Paid Speaking Gigs in 2024
Download our 18-page guide and start booking more paid speaking gigs today!
FAQs on Symbolic Speech
What is an example of symbolic speech?
Burning the American flag in protest is a classic example. It sends a strong message without saying a word.
What is symbolism speech examples?
Wearing black armbands to school to oppose war, like in Tinker v. Des Moines, showcases powerful symbolic expression.
Why is symbolic speech important?
It lets people express deep convictions creatively when words fall short. This form of free speech shapes public discourse and influences change.
Does the First Amendment protect symbolic speech?
Absolutely. The Supreme Court has consistently backed it as essential for democratic engagement and personal freedom.
Conclusion
Symbolic speech is a powerful tool that allows us to express ourselves in ways that words alone cannot. From the black armbands worn by students protesting the Vietnam War to the burning of the American flag, symbolic speech has played a crucial role in shaping American society and sparking important conversations.
Symbolic speech, while a cornerstone of our freedom, is not without boundaries. The powers that be can rein it in when there’s good reason to do so, such as keeping folks safe or nipping violence in the bud. Finding the balance between freedom and order isn’t always clear-cut, but it is worthwhile.
The history and significance of symbolic speech are fascinating—from political t-shirts to controversial flags, there’s always a deeper meaning to unpack. So the next time you spot someone making a statement with their clothing or accessories, take a moment to consider the message they’re trying to convey. You never know what you might discover!
