Question

Maggie and Sally come to school wearing new khaki pants. On the back of the pants, where pockets usually are, the girls put patches of the American flag. Therefore, when the girls sat down, they sat on the flag. Would it be constitutional for the school administration to restrict this form of speech why or why not?

A. Yes, it would be constitutional because sitting on the flag is a form of disrespect and can be restricted.
B. No, it would not be constitutional as it is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.
C. Yes, it would be constitutional because it violates the school's dress code.
D. No, it would not be constitutional because the school can regulate student attire as it sees fit.

Answer 1

Option B is correct; it would not be constitutional to restrict Maggie and Sally's form of expression as it is protected by the First Amendment unless it poses a material and substantial disruption.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question asks whether it would be constitutional for school administration to restrict Maggie and Sally from wearing pants with American flag patches on the pockets, an act which results in sitting on the flag. Drawing on prior Supreme Court rulings on symbolic speech, particularly in relation to the First Amendment, the school can only restrict speech if it can prove the speech would "materially and substantially interfere" with school operations (Tinker v. Des Moines). Thus, the answer is most aligned with Option B: No, it would not be constitutional as it is a form of expression protected by the First Amendment. This is because, as established in various cases, including Texas v. Johnson, symbolic speech such as flag burning is protected under the First Amendment unless it poses a real disruption or threat to the school environment.