Which case protected symbolic speech, including flag burning, under the First Amendment?

• A. Texas v. Johnson (1989)
• B. United States v. O'Brien (1968)
• C. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
• D. Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is that expressive acts can be protected speech under the First Amendment, especially when they convey political views. In Texas v. Johnson, the Court held that burning the American flag is a form of expressive conduct and is protected as speech. The government cannot criminalize flag desecration simply because it is offensive or sparks disagreement, since doing so targets a particular mode of political expression and suppresses a viewpoint the government dislikes. The state’s interest in preserving respect for the flag did not justify banning such expressive conduct, and the law failed strict scrutiny because it was essentially a content-based restriction on political speech.

To see why this is the best fit, compare how other cases handle symbolic acts. United States v. O'Brien allows restrictions on certain symbolic conduct (like burning a draft card) when the regulation serves an important government interest and is not aimed at suppressing expression, which is a different situation than suppressing political speech itself. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire deals with fighting words—words that by their nature incite immediate harm or public disorder—while Tinker v. Des Moines protects student expression in school settings. None of these turn on flag burning as protected political speech in the way Texas v. Johnson does, making the Johnson decision the key case recognizing symbolic acts like flag burning as First Amendment protection.