Which of the following correctly explains how the Supreme
Court’s decisions in Texas v. Johnson and United States v.
Eichman contributed to the right of freedom of speech?
(1 point)
Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning
a U.S. flag in protest.
Highlight
Both decisions protected participants in the civil rights
movement from being punished for their civil
disobedience.
Both decisions involved selective incorporation requiring
states to protect freedom of speech.
Both cases ruled that flag burning could be outlawed in
places it was considered offensive.
The correct answer is: Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest.
The correct answer is: Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest.
The correct explanation is: Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest.
To get to this answer, let's break down the options:
Option 1: Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest.
This option correctly explains that both Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman rulings protected the act of burning the U.S. flag as a form of symbolic speech, which is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. This means that individuals have the right to express themselves by burning the flag as a form of protest.
Option 2: Both decisions protected participants in the civil rights movement from being punished for their civil disobedience.
This option does not accurately explain how the Supreme Court decisions in these cases contributed to the right of freedom of speech. While the civil rights movement involved significant activism and protests, these specific cases were about the act of flag burning, not the civil rights movement as a whole.
Option 3: Both decisions involved selective incorporation requiring states to protect freedom of speech.
This option is not correct as it misrepresents the concept of selective incorporation. Selective incorporation refers to the process by which certain provisions of the Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in these cases, the Supreme Court's decisions were based on the interpretation of the First Amendment, not selective incorporation.
Option 4: Both cases ruled that flag burning could be outlawed in places it was considered offensive.
This option is also incorrect. Both Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman rulings concluded that flag burning, as a form of symbolic speech, was protected under the First Amendment. Therefore, these decisions did not allow for flag burning to be outlawed in places where it was considered offensive.
Given the analysis of the options, option 1 - "Both decisions protected the symbolic speech of burning a U.S. flag in protest" - is the correct explanation of how the Supreme Court's decisions in Texas v. Johnson and United States v. Eichman contributed to the right of freedom of speech.