1. See, for example, Randall Bezanson, Speech Stories: How Free Can Speech Be? (discussion of cross-burning, flag burning, pornography, offensive words on clothing and other situations where speech and conduct seem to collide).

2. The communicative and political aspects of art can be extremely important in evaluating whether the art is protected from censorship. See Randall Bezanson, Art and Freedom of Speech 7–49 (discussion of Karen Finley performance artist).

3. Ira Robbins, “Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger and the Law”, California Davis Law Review 41 (2008): 1403.

4. 547 US 47 (2006).

5. 10 USCA s 983(b) (Supp.2005).

6. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc v. Rumsfeld, 291 F Supp 2d 269 (D NJ 2003).

7. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc v. Rumsfeld, 390 F 3d 219 (3d Cir 2004).

8. See Haig Bosmajian, The Freedom Not to Speak, 204.

9. West Virginia v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943).

10. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 US 705 (1977). To meet the objections of pacifists, the state of New Hampshire subsequently offered “Scenic” as an alternative.

11. United States v. Eichman, 496 US 310 (1990); Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989). Both of these cases were decided on 5-4 majorities reflecting the continuing controversy over the legality of flag burning as lawful expressive conduct.

12. Rumsfeld, 547 US 47, 66 (2006).

13. Margaret Blanchard, Revolutionary Sparks––Freedom of Expression in America, 457–459.

14. See cases discussed in Robert Goldstein, Flag Burning & Free Speech, 245–254.

15. The 9-0 vote of the justices can be somewhat deceptive because there is not any justice currently sitting on the Supreme Court who has a reputation for defending symbolic or nonverbal speech but had there been a justice with such a predisposition, the overall vote could have been significantly different and possibly even have reached an opposite conclusion. The late