Exploring First Amendment Impacts In “Thin Blue Line” Flag Case

Black and white flag with blue stripe flying

A federal court struck down a Pennsylvania township’s flag ban, raising questions about free speech and public perception.

Key Takeaways

A federal court deemed the ban on the “Thin Blue Line” flag unconstitutional, violating First Amendment rights.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the township infringed upon free speech protections.
Concerns about the flag’s association with white supremacist ideologies fueled the controversy.
Springfield Township’s argument about the flag causing discontent and distrust was unsupported by evidence.

Legal Battle Over Free Speech

The Fraternal Order of Police v. Township of Springfield saw a Pennsylvania community challenge a ban on the “Thin Blue Line” flag, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights. Judge Karen Marston ruled the policy unconstitutional, highlighting the restrictions it placed on public employees’ free speech. The case underscored the importance of constitutional protections, especially in politically sensitive matters. Despite Springfield Township’s concerns, the court found no substantial evidence supporting claims of harm caused by the flag.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed that the township’s policy infringed upon First Amendment rights. While some township officials feared the flag represented white supremacist views, the court emphasized that concerns must be balanced against the right to free expression. The township failed to demonstrate any specific disruptions caused by the display of the flag, further weakening their case.

A Pattern of Controversy

After the police union incorporated the flag into its logo in 2021, tensions rose. Springfield Township’s commissioners requested its removal, offering $10,000 to change the logo—a proposal rejected by the union. This refusal led to the passing of Resolution No. 1592, barring public employees from displaying the flag while on duty. Regardless, the court deemed the township’s stance as insufficiently tailored to address alleged issues, as the resolution allowed for the expression of opposing viewpoints.

“The Township repeatedly suggests that the Thin Blue Line American Flag is of limited, if any, public value or concern because it is ‘offensive’ and ‘racist,’” U.S. District Judge Karen Marston wrote in the court opinion. “But as this Court previously told the Township, ‘the First Amendment protects speech even when it is considered “offensive.”'”

The township’s claims of the flag causing discontent and mistrust were substantiated only by minimal resident feedback. The failure to demonstrate specific harms from the flag meant the restrictive resolution was deemed excessive. The court argued that free speech protections should not be overridden by subjective interpretations of symbols.

A #FirstAmendment No-Brainer: Pennsylvania Township’s Ban of ‘Thin Blue Line’ Flag Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules. https://t.co/BeLY8KfppW

— Clay Calvert (@ProfClayCalvert) November 16, 2023

Balancing Free Speech and Public Trust

Despite the court’s ruling, dissenting voices like Judge Patty Shwartz highlighted the complexities of balancing public perception with free expression rights. Shwartz argued that the township’s interest in maintaining public trust could outweigh police officers’ rights, suggesting alternative symbols to represent law enforcement support without perceived racist connotations.

This case signifies the delicate balance between protecting free speech and managing divergent interpretations of symbols among the public. The court’s decision serves as a reminder of the First Amendment’s role in safeguarding expressions, even amid societal disputes.