Spence v. Washington (1974)

Facts of the Case

Harold Spence, a college student in Washington state, displayed an American flag outside his apartment window. He had attached a large peace symbol made of removable black tape to protest the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and the Kent State shootings. He was convicted under a state law prohibiting the exhibition of an American flag to which figures, symbols, or designs were attached. Spence argued that his display was protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment.

Constitutional Question

Does attaching a peace symbol to an American flag and displaying it constitute protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment, or can a state punish such expression under a flag misuse law?

Arguments

  • Spence’s Arguments:
    • His use of the flag was symbolic expression intended to convey a clear political message.
    • The act was peaceful, did not threaten public order, and occurred on private property.
    • Punishing him for expressing dissent through a flag display violated the First Amendment.
  • State of Washington’s Arguments:
    • The state has a legitimate interest in preserving the flag as a symbol of national unity and preventing its misuse.
    • Altering the flag with symbols undermines respect for it.
    • The law did not prohibit his message, only the use of the flag in that manner.

Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 per curiam decision, reversed Spence’s conviction.

  • The Court held that Spence’s display was a form of symbolic speech clearly intended to convey a political message and understood as such by viewers.
  • The state’s interest in preserving the flag’s “purity” did not outweigh Spence’s First Amendment right to express dissent.
  • The Court emphasized that his act did not involve desecration, destruction, or breach of the peace; it was simply a modification of the flag for expressive purposes.

Significance

  • Expanded symbolic speech protection: Reinforced that nonverbal acts can be protected speech when they convey a clear message.
  • Flag use clarified: Distinguished between expressive, peaceful flag displays and acts that may involve desecration or incitement.
  • Laid groundwork for later cases: Helped establish the constitutional reasoning later applied in Texas v. Johnson (1989), where burning the flag was ruled protected symbolic speech.