Abstract
In this (very) short essay, I establish these points: All speech is symbolic; any conduct can be used to communicate a message (i.e., symbolically); government’s purpose in regulating, and not a speaker’s intention to communicate, defines the realm of freedom of expression; and determining the value of speech has a denominator problem.
Highlights
There have been and continue to be numerous law review articles and judicial opinions debating whether something is or is not “speech” within the meaning of freedom of speech
Calvert analyzes whether tattoos and tattooing, “Likes” and “Liking” on Facebook, and begging are “speech” in the relevant sense (Calvert, 2013)
That is a strong position, but it is a corollary of the position that free speech is in play when—and only when—government is regulating to prevent the receipt of an idea
Summary
There have been and continue to be numerous law review articles and judicial opinions debating whether something is or is not “speech” within the meaning of freedom of speech. Almost fifty years ago the court distinguished “speech” from “symbolic speech”, concluding that the latter was due less constitutional protection than the former Karl Marx’s writings come within freedom of speech even though he is both dead and foreign—at least if the government suppresses them because of the ideas Marx expressed.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
