Document: 496 U.S. 310 110 S.Ct. 2404 L.Ed.2d 287 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Shawn D. EICHMAN, David Gerald Blalock and Scott W. Tyler. Appellant, v. Mark John HAGGERTY, Carlos Garza, Jennifer Proctor Campbell Darius Allen Strong. Nos. 89-1433, 89-1434. Argued May 14, 1990. Decided June 11, Syllabus After this Court held, in Texas Johnson, 491 397, 109 2533, 105 342, that a statute criminalizing desecration of the United States flag way actor knew would seriously offend onlookers was unconstitutional as applied to an individual who had burned during political protest, Congress passed Flag Protection Act 1989. The criminalizes conduct anyone "knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on floor or ground, tramples upon" flag, except related disposal "worn soiled" flag. Subsequently, appellees were prosecuted District Courts for violating Act: some knowingly burning several flags while protesting various aspects Government's policies, others, separate incident, Act's passage. In each case, moved dismiss charges ground violates First Amendment. Both Courts, following supra, held dismissed charges. Held: Appellees' prosecution violation is inconsistent with Government concedes, it must, appellees' constituted expressive conduct, declines reconsider its rejection Johnson claim mode expression does not enjoy Amendment's full protection. It true Act, unlike law, contains no explicit content-based limitation scope prohibited conduct. Nevertheless, clear asserted interest protecting "physical integrity" privately owned order preserve flag's status symbol Nation certain national ideals suppression, concerned content, free expression. mere destruction disfigurement symbol's physical manifestation diminish otherwise affect itself. implicated only when person's treatment communicates message others identified ideals. precise language prohibitions confirms Congress' communicative impact destruction, since specified terms—with possible exception "burns"—unmistakably connotes disrespectful suggests focus those acts likely damage symbolic value, exemption protects traditionally associated patriotic respect Thus, suffers from same fundamental flaw restriction cannot " 'be justified without reference content regulated speech,' Boos Barry, 485 312, 320, 108 1157, 1163, 99 333. must therefore be subjected "the most exacting scrutiny," id., at 321, S.Ct., 1164, and, reasons stated U.S., 413-415, 2544-2545, justify infringement Amendment rights. This conclusion will reassessed light recent recognition purported "national consensus" favoring prohibition burning, any suggestion suppressing speech becomes more weighty popular opposition grows foreign While desecration—like virulent ethnic religious epithets, vulgar repudiations draft, scurrilous caricatures—is deeply offensive many, may prohibit idea simply because society finds itself disagreeable. Pp. 313-319. No. 731 F.Supp. 1123 (DDC 1990); 89-1434, 415, affirmed. BRENNAN, J., delivered opinion Court, which MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, SCALIA, KENNEDY, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE O'CONNOR, joined, post, p. 2410. Sol. Gen. Kenneth Starr, Washington, D.C., appellant. William M. Kunstler, New York City, appellees. Justice BRENNAN Court. 1 these consolidated appeals, we consider whether 1989 consistent Applying our decision 342 (1989), constitutionally We affirm. 2 * 1989, 103 Stat. 777, 18 U.S.C. § 700 (1988 ed. Supp. I), by setting fire steps Capitol domestic policy. other Seattle respective flag-burning charge both face applied, Western 415 (1990), Columbia, charges.1 appealed decisions directly pursuant 700(d) (1982 ed., I).2 noted probable jurisdiction two cases. 494 1063, 1779, 780 (1990). II 3 Last Term venerated objects, including set such demonstration. provided "[a] person commits offense if he intentionally desecrates . [a] flag," where "desecrate" meant "deface, damage, mistreat knows one persons observe discover his action." Tex. Penal Code Ann. 42.09 (1989). first Johnson's "conduct 'sufficiently imbued elements communication' implicate Amendment." 406, (citation omitted). next considered rejected State's contention that, under O'Brien, 391 367, 88 1673, 20 672 (1968), ought apply deferential standard have reviewed regulations containing nonspeech governmental unrelated suppression expression." Id., 377, 1679. reasoned "in preserving nationhood unity," "related 'to expression' within meaning O'Brien concern "only message." 410, 2543. 'the scrutiny,' 412, 2543, quoting 333 (1988), concluded interests could demonstrator's 4 1989.3 provides relevant part: 5 "(a)(1) Whoever upon shall fined title imprisoned than year, both. 6 "(2) subsection consisting has become worn soiled. 7 "(b) As used section, term 'flag States' means States, part thereof, made substance, size, form commonly displayed." I). 8 concedes cases, Brief 28; see 405-406, 2540, but invites us expression, like obscenity "fighting words," protection Cf. Chaplinsky Hampshire, 315 568, 572, 62 766, 769, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942). decline do.4 remaining question sufficiently distinct proscribe 9 contends constitutional because, addressed target basis message. asserts "protect[ing] integrity all circumstances" safeguard identity 'as unique unalloyed Nation.' 28, 29. proscribes (other disposal) damages mistreats regard actor's motive, intended message, effects onlookers. By contrast, expressly "that offend" onlookers, former federal "cas[t] contempt 10 Although nevertheless expression,' integ rity" flag5 rests perceived need But particular symbol, more, way. For example, secret one's own basement threaten recognized meaning. Rather, desire message" ideals.6 Ibid. Moreover, destruction. flag." 700(a)(1) Each value.7 And 700(a)(2) flag.8 11 explained 416-417, 2546: "[I]f hold State forbid wherever endanger role, allow promotes role—as where, ceremoniously burns dirty flag—we permitting 'prescribe what orthodox' saying burn convey attitude toward referents representation unity." cast somewhat broader terms issue still flaw: suppresses out impact. Despite wider scope, 'justified speech.' Boos, 1163 (emphasis omitted) omitted); Spence 418 405, 414, nn. 8, 9, 94 2727, 2732 41 842 (1974) (State's value thus test inapplicable even declared "simply nothing affixed superimposed flag"). invitation reassess burning. 27. Even assuming consensus exists, III 12 'National unity end officials foster persuasion example question.' 418, 2547, West Virginia Board Education Barnette, 319 624, 640, 63 1178, 1186, 87 1628 (1943). create symbols, promote them, encourage their respectful treatment.9 goes well beyond criminally proscribing 13 are aware many. might said, Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 69 894, 93 1131 (1949), Cohen California, 403 15, 91 1780, 29 284 (1971), caricatures, Hustler Magazine, Inc. Falwell, 46, 876, (1988). "If there bedrock principle underlying Amendment, disagreeable." 2545. Punishing dilutes very freedom makes emblem so revered, worth revering. judgments 14 Affirmed. 15 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, O'CONNOR join, dissenting. 16 Court's ends proper analysis should begin. Of course Ante page. None disagrees proposition. equally settled methods (a) supported legitimate societal ideas speaker desires express; (b) entail interference speaker's express means; (c) allowing complete choice among alternative less important supporting prohibition. 17 Contrary position taken counsel burners now conceded Federal American Obviously measured, described, precision. least components: times crisis, inspires motivates average citizen make personal sacrifices achieve goals overriding importance; times, serves reminder paramount importance pursuing characterize society. trying express. my judgment answer depends, part, are. A burner intend messages. wish hatred, contempt, sheer directed States. case enemy time war. also, instead, seek depth conviction about issue, willingly provoking use force against himself. doing, says "my disagreement policies strong I am prepared risk harm (and perhaps imprisonment) call attention views." second possibility apparently describes Like protesters dramatized engagement Vietnam publicly draft cards—and punished doing so—their affection country symbolizes. There further possibility: accusation people disagree him. embodiment America's collective commitment equality, majority forsaken commitment—that continued hypocrisy. Such loves zealously pursues claims honor. 19 expressed act necessarily dependent temporal context occurs. 1960's country's compulsory draft. platform Republican Party. racial discrimination, failure care homeless, statutory examples, say faithful liberty accuse fellow citizens hypocritical indifference to—or selfish departure from—the supposed symbolize. often ambiguous. is, however, essentially regardless many different motivated dissent 436-439, 2549, uniquely symbolizes liberty, tolerance Americans passionately defended debated throughout history. embodies spirit thereby transmitted take stand disagreements, disagreements best regarded competing interpretations shared judge they command enlightened equality. To world, promise continue strive us, struggle equality unceasing, obligation encompasses us—indeed, whose disagreeable offensive. 21 may—indeed, should—protect specific burners' speech. cases depend object defendants' protest. moreover, her means. effective drawing ideas, sufficient reason immunizing Presumably gigantic fireworks display parade nude models public park draw controversial subject regulation. 22 These come down judgment. Does admittedly every choose method expressing she deems appropriate outweigh flag? question, turn, involves three judgments: (1) selecting preferred communication; (2) symbol; (3) enhance tarnish value. opinions demonstrate reasonable judges differ judgments. 23 unquestionably matter great importance. Indeed, critical components buttressed being alerted thoughtful response voices go unheard. protected embraces communicate also right them effectively. That right, absolute—the well-placed bomb entitle 24 Burning not, course, equivalent building. Assuming protester causes property. purely symbolic, apparent believe impact, far depreciating actually respectfully disagree. particularly difficult me already occurred result place stamp approval formerly dramatic protest rather commonplace. today's marketplace card probably provocative lighting cigarette. Tomorrow produce similar reaction. surely direct relationship between burned. 25 today yesterday. Events last decades altered image eyes numerous Americans, difficulty understanding conveyed parents grandparents—whether born abroad naturalized native born. been compromised leaders seem advocate worship individuals offends, manipulate purpose into pretext partisan disputes meaner ends. And, suggested, residual after year ago. 26 Given considerations, plus fact really reconfirming decided, defer merely doctrine stare decisis hand. action, honestly reflect concerning relative conflicting stake. remain persuaded considerations controlling well. 27 Accordingly, dissent. charged causing willful injury property §§ 1361 1362. remains pending before affects constitutionality prosecution. See n. 5, infra. "(1) An appeal Supreme interlocutory final judgment, decree, issued district court ruling (a). shall, previously ruled accept over advance docket expedite greatest extent possible." replaced then-existing statute, Johnson. Former 700(a) cast[ing] mutilating, defacing, defiling, trampling it." deal here concededly occasion pass validity laws regulating commercial exploitation 415-416, 10, 2546 (1989); cf. Halter Nebraska, 205 34, 419, 51 696 (1907). Today's special measures behalf. 408-409, 2729-30, (1974); 412-413, 2544, 8. Aside association ideals, irreducible level emblematic sovereign entity. amici assert nonspeech-related safeguarding "eminently practical legal aspect incident sovereignty." Speaker Leadership Group House Representatives Amicus Curiae 25. firm historical roots: "While role well-established, sovereignty purposes patriots others. When nation's founders determined adopt serve functions relating nation." 9; (noting "flag's 'historic function' marking 'our presence schools, buildings, battleships airplanes' ") concede function "incident sovereignty," though address thwart core function, appropriation Amici do cannot, explain how penalizes defiles designed maintaining Nation. interfere way; indeed, burner's depends viewer's ability association. "defile" defined "to filthy; corrupt purity perfection of; rob chastity; ceremonially unclean; tarnish, dishonor." Webster's Third International Dictionary 592 (1976). "Trample" tread heavily bruise, crush, injure; inflict destruction: contemptuous ruthless attitude." 2425. flying storm threatens albeit indirect manner unlikely disrespect. See, e.g., 36 173-177 (suggesting displayed).

Category: 2