Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 41

4 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

looks  beyond  written  or  spoken  words  as  mediums  of
expression,” id., at 569, and that “[s]ymbolism is a primi­
tive  but  effective  way  of  communicating  ideas,”  West  Vir-
ginia  Bd.  of  Ed.  v.  Barnette,  319  U. S.  624,  632  (1943).
Thus, a person’s “conduct may be ‘sufficiently imbued with
elements  of  communication  to  fall  within  the  scope  of  the
First  and  Fourteenth  Amendments.’ ”  Texas  v.  Johnson, 
491  U. S.  397,  404  (1989).    Applying  this  principle,  the
Court  has  recognized  a  wide  array  of  conduct  that  can
qualify as expressive, including nude dancing, burning the 
American  flag,  flying  an  upside-down  American  flag  with
a  taped-on  peace  sign,  wearing  a  military  uniform,  wear­
ing a black armband, conducting a silent sit-in, refusing to 
salute the American flag, and flying a plain red flag.1 

Of  course,  conduct  does  not  qualify  as  protected  speech
simply because “the person engaging in [it] intends thereby
to  express  an  idea.”    United  States  v.  O’Brien,  391  U. S. 
367,  376  (1968).  To  determine  whether  conduct  is  suffi­
ciently expressive, the Court asks whether it was “intended
to  be  communicative”  and,  “in  context,  would  reasona- 
bly  be  understood  by  the  viewer  to  be  communicative.” 
Clark  v.  Community  for  Creative  Non-Violence,  468  U. S. 
288,  294  (1984).  But  a  “ ‘particularized  message’ ”  is  not 
required, or else the freedom of speech “would never reach
the  unquestionably  shielded  painting  of  Jackson  Pollock,
music  of  Arnold  Schöenberg,  or  Jabberwocky  verse  of 
Lewis Carroll.”  Hurley, 515 U. S., at 569. 

Once  a  court  concludes  that  conduct  is  expressive,  the 

—————— 

1 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U. S. 560, 565–566 (1991); Texas v. 
Johnson,  491  U. S.  397,  405–406  (1989);  Spence  v.  Washington,  418 
U. S.  405,  406,  409–411  (1974)  (per  curiam);  Schacht  v.  United  States, 
398 U. S. 58, 62–63 (1970); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Commu-
nity  School  Dist.,  393  U. S.  503,  505–506  (1969);  Brown  v.  Louisiana, 
383 U. S. 131, 141–142 (1966) (opinion of Fortas, J.); West Virginia Bd. 
of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633–634 (1943); Stromberg v. Califor-
nia, 283 U. S. 359, 361, 369 (1931).