Stromberg V. California Case Study

Using words to express opposition to the American government is generally accepted, but what about symbols or emblems? Does the right to free speech include a right to express views and communicate ideas via means other than literal speech? The Supreme Court was asked to decide this in the case of Stromberg v. California and they ruled that use of a flag to communicate ideas was, indeed, covered by the Constitution’s protections for free speech.

Stromberg v. California: Background

It was once common for state and local governments to regulate people’s speech; not until 1925 did the Supreme Court begin applying First Amendment restrictions to them. California law, for example, made it a felony if anyone: displays a red flag, banner or badge

In the majority decision, Chief Justice Hughes noted that even the state court recognized that this clause was ambiguous and could be used against patriotic people of one political party engaged in peaceful, legal opposition to a government controlled by another political party. That, however, would impinge upon political debate:

The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the Republic is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. A statute which upon its face, and as authoritatively construed, is so vague and indefinite as to permit the punishment of the fair use of this opportunity is repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth