Final answer:
In United States v. O'Brien, the Supreme Court ruled that burning a draft card is not protected under the First Amendment when the governmental interest is unrelated to speech suppression. In contrast, Johnson v. Texas established that flag desecration is protected as expressive conduct. These rulings highlight the complexity of balancing individual rights against governmental interests.
Step-by-step explanation:
Is Flag Desecration Protected by the First Amendment?
The case of United States v. O'Brien addressed the issue of whether certain acts, such as draft-card burning, are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court ruled that such conduct could be restricted if it served an important governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression.
However, in a later case, Johnson v. Texas, the Court held that the desecration of an American flag is a form of expressive conduct that is protected under the First Amendment. The distinction lies in whether the government's interest is to suppress the message itself or to achieve a purpose unrelated to the suppression of free speech.
In United States v. O'Brien, the Court explained that while the draft-card burning had communicative elements, the governmental interest in maintaining an efficient draft system justified limitations on First Amendment freedoms as they were not targeted at suppressing free expression.
In contrast, Johnson v. Texas found that flag burning constitutes a distinctively political form of expression, and the government cannot prohibit it just because the message is offensive or disagreeable to some.
Clear and present danger, such as a direct call for imminent lawless action, is a situation where free speech protections might not apply. The history of free speech jurisprudence shows that a balance between individual expression and societal interests is often at the heart of such legal determinations.