In the Stromberg v. California case of 1930, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state law prohibiting red flags as an emblem of opposition to organized government was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment's protection of symbolic speech. The defendant, Yetta Stromberg, had been convicted under this law for displaying a red flag at a summer camp in support of communism. The court held that peaceful and passive political expression could not be criminalized simply because it might incite violence or subversive activities by others. This decision marked one of the first times when the Supreme Court applied free speech protections to symbolic acts and set important precedents for future cases involving freedom of expression.

In the dissenting opinion for Stromberg v. California, Justice Sanford argued that the statute in question was not unconstitutional because it did not infringe on freedom of speech or assembly. He contended that the law merely prohibited a specific act - flying a red flag as an emblem of opposition to organized government - which could incite violence and pose a threat to public peace and safety. Furthermore, he believed this prohibition fell within the state's police power to protect its citizens from potential harm caused by such acts. The majority's interpretation of free speech rights, according to him, went beyond what was intended by constitutional framers who never meant these rights to be absolute but subject to reasonable restrictions necessary for maintaining order in society.