What characterizes **symbolic speech** is nonverbal communication that is not written, for example, burning the national flag, wearing provocative armbands, or simply wearing a regular armband. The primary purpose of symbolic speech is to convey a specific desired message to the audience. The First Amendment protects the symbolism of speech (symbolic speech) unless it causes a threat to the public or individual order.

In **Tinker v. Des Moines School District** (1969), the government protected the right to symbolic speech. Reportedly, several students had worn black armbands to express their opposition to the ongoing Vietnam war. School officials demanded the students take the armband down. The court found that the school officials have over-crossed their authority, violating students’ freedom of speech and expression.

This illustrates the protection of symbolic speech, for which everyone has the right because the court concluded wearing black armbands does not cause harm to anyone and is to be freely expressed.

All individuals have a right to **freedom of speech and expression** by expressing opinion and conveniences. An individual has the right to be vocal about, send, receive and look for information through various forms of media. A violation of the freedom of speech is any action that interferes with the free flow of information. Furthermore, the Constitution guarantees “the liberty of expression by means of motion pictures” per the 1st and the 14th Amendments.

In the case **Burstyn v. Wilson**, the court reversed its decision over a censorship case by concluding that there was no need and the right for censorship of movies as the Constitution protects the liberty of expression by motion pictures. In this case, the meaning of prior restraint is that the government does, and it was concluded that it should not condone checks on the media material prior to publishing to suppress it. This would be a form of prior restraint like for the newspapers to which the government demands a level of prior restraint. The 1st Amendment severely limits the government from doing prior restraint because of the freedom of expression.

In this case, the meaning of **prior restraint** is that the government does not, and it was concluded that it should not condone checks on the media material of the movies prior to publishing to suppress it. This would be a form of prior restraint like for the newspapers to which the government demands a level of prior restraint. The 1st Amendment severely limits the government from doing prior restraint because of the freedom of expression.

When someone uses the internet to communicate messages, usually of a threatening and intimidating nature, that bully an individual is what is called cyberbullying. It is a problem that arose with the influence of social media and the internet. Like any matter in the society that might interfere with someone’s freedom and well-being, the government has to intervene.

The **1st Amendment** protects the rights of individual freedom of speech and expression.

When the court constitutionally considers the **case in California** with regard to cyberbullying, it will have to evaluate whether the matter is harming or cyberbullying someone, or whether the matter is in the lines of an individual expression and freedom of speech.

In 1983, a high school in Washington suspended a student named Matthew Fraser for three days because he gave an inappropriate speech at a larger gathering at the school.
The student soon sued the school, claiming that his freedom of speech was endangered in this way, so after the initial courts, the case was brought before the Supreme Court in 1986. It was Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser case.

The Supreme Court passed a verdict according to which the school did not violate the constitution when suspending this student. It was established that the student’s rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment were not violated. The court took the position that the school has the right and obligation to protect students from inappropriate content, and that the school board has the right to decide what is inappropriate.

The Court also found that the student’s rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment were not violated (due process rights). It is held that the school has the right to suspend a student who has violated the rule of a disciplinary political school (in this case the rule of prohibition of indecency). It was also pointed out that the student was warned in advance that he should not give the disputed speech and that he would bear the consequences if he did the opposite.

In the case **Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association** (2011), the Supreme Court determined that the sale of violent video games to minors violated the 1st Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court forbidden the sale of violent video games to a minor. 

Some **counterarguments** were brought up about the violent content minors were reading in the books but is legal. Also, it was argued that forbidding video games would be a violation of the freedom of expression because the video games are considered to be a form of freedom of expression.

However, there was evidence from experimental studies shown in the court that minors who played violent video games tended to be more aggressive and show more aggression than other minors who did not play violent video games material.