Freedom of Speech in a Flag… What about a Christian Flag?

by | Jun 6, 2022 |

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Is flying a flag government speech? That was the question before the Supreme Court in the case of Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. When the City of Boston refused to fly a Christian flag did they infringe on the rights of Mr. Shurtlef? Did Harold Shurtleff have the right to fly the flag of his choice on public property? What does this mean for other Freedom of Speech cases around the country?


This case all started with a policy the City of Boston adopted in 2005.

Just outside the entrance to Boston City Hall, on City Hall Plaza, stand three flagpoles. Boston flies the American flag from the first pole and the flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the second. Boston usually flies the citys own flag from the third pole. But Boston has, for years, allowed groups to hold ceremonies on the plaza during which participants may hoist a flag of their choosing on the third pole in place of the citys flag. B etween 2005 and 2017, Boston approved the raising of about 50 unique flags for 284 such ceremonies. Most of these flags were other countries, but some were associated with groups or causes, such as the Pride Flag, a banner honoring emergency medical service workers, and others.

Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Opinion

Sounds like a nice public relations program. Allow groups to hold ceremonies in the plaza and raise a flag on one of the flagpoles. For twelve years, everything was fine.

In 2017, Harold Shurtleff, the director of an organization called Camp Constitution, asked to hold an event on the plaza to celebrate the civic and social contributions of the Christian community; as part of that ceremony, he wished to raise what he described as the Christian flag.”

Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Opinion

Sure enough, once someone asked to raise that scary Christian flag, the problems started.

The commissioner of Bostons Property Management Department worried that flying a religious flag at City Hall could violate the Establishment Clause and found no past instance of the city having raised such a flag. He, therefore, told Shurtleff that the group could hold an event on the plaza but could not raise their flag during it. Shurtleff and Camp Constitution (petitioners) sued, claiming that Bostons refusal to let them raise their flag violated, among other things, the First Amendments Free Speech Clause.

Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Opinion

Like many in governments from the federal to the local, including the Supreme Court of the United States, Bostons Property Management Department has a serious misunderstanding not only of the Establishment Clause, but of the First Amendment as a whole.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

U.S. Constitution, Amendment I

Lets start with the first five words, Congress shall make no law…”. Congress” is the proper noun for the national legislature, as established by Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,

U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 1, Clause 1

Since the law allowing the flying of flags over the Boston City Hall Plaza was not created by Congress, and since the City of Boston is not a part of the federal government, it cannot violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. What the City of Boston should have been concerned with was Articles II and XLVI of the Massachusetts Constitution:

It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

Massachusetts Constitution, Article II

Section 1. No law shall be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Massachusetts Constitution, Article XLVI

Since Mr. Shurtleff claimed a violation of the Constitution of the United States, his case was heard in federal court.

The District Court held that flying private groupsflags from City Halls third flagpole amounted to government speech, so Boston could refuse petitionersrequest without running afoul of the First Amendment. The First Circuit affirmed.

Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Opinion


This brings us to the case were reviewing today.

Government Speech

The question the Supreme Court was reviewing is whether or not the District Court was correct. Was flying a flag from City Halls flagpole government speech or not? If it was government speech, then the government had the right to control what was being said. If it was not government speech, then the City of Boston had violated Mr. Shurtleffs rights by denying him his Freedom of Speech.

The boundary between government speech and private expression can blur when, as here, the government invites the people to participate in a program…

Applying this government-speech analysis here, the Court finds that some evidence favors Boston, and other evidence favors Shurtleff. The history of flag flying, particularly at the seat of government, supports Boston…

The question remains whether, on the 20 or so times a year when Boston allowed private groups to raise their own flags, those flags, too, expressed the citys message.

Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Opinion

In general, when a government flies a flag it is expressing a message. For example, flying the flag of another country means a foreign leader is visiting while flying a flag at half-staff conveys a message of sympathy or somber remembrance. However, what happens when the government is not the one choosing the flag?

The circumstantial evidence of the publics perception does not resolve the issue. The most salient feature of this case is that Boston neither actively controlled these flag raisings nor shaped the messages the flags sent. To be sure, Boston maintained control over an events date and time to avoid conflicts, and it maintained control over the plazas physical premises, presumably to avoid chaos. But the key issue is whether Boston shaped or controlled the flagscontent and meaning; such evidence would tend to show that Boston intended to convey the flagsmessages as its own. And on that issue, Bostons record is thin.

Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Opinion

Boston had told the public that it sought to accommodate all applicants”, though apparently, that did not extend to religion applicants.

Because the flag-raising program did not express government speech, Bostons refusal to let petitioners fly their flag violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on religious viewpoint”; doing so constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.”

Shurtleff, et al. V. City Of Boston et al. Opinion

Since the City of Boston had, among other things, specifically sought to accommodate all applicants, denying one simply because of their religious viewpoint violates the Free Speech Clause. Not of the First Amendment as Justice Breyer claims, but Article LXXVII of the Massachusetts Constitution:

The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth. The right of free speech shall not be abridged.

Massachusetts Constitution, Article LXXVII


Im happy for Mr. Shurtleff. He got the correct answer, even if it was based on the wrong law. The City of Boston had violated Mr. Shurtleffs freedom of speech. Its just that since it was the City of Boston and not Congress who passed the law, it was a violation of the Constitution of Massachusetts and not the United States that Boston violated.

What does this mean for the rest of the country?

Once again, the Supreme Court has substituted its own opinion for the supreme law of the land. While the outcome may have been the correct one, how can we trust that the court will get it right the next time?

In the meantime, other government facilities should see that viewpoint discrimination is a violation of a persons Freedom of Speech. This opinion was focused on the participation of religious viewpoints in public displays. The City of Boston uses flags, but what other public displays could this impact?

If a city park can be used by groups to put up displays, can they deny a church the right to put up a nativity scene? Can a public school deny the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance because of the words One nation under God” or the singing of Christmas carols? If the critical distinction is who controls the display, then the use of public property for religious displays shouldnt raise a constitutional issue. I only hope that future government actors will recognize this fact.

Paul Engel

Author and speaker Paul Engel has spent more than 20 years studying and teaching about both the Bible and the U.S. Constitution. That experience helps Paul explain difficult concepts in a way most people can understand. As one manager described, “Paul can take the most complex idea and explain it in a way my grandmother can understand.” Freely admitting that he “learned more about our Constitution from School House Rock (a Saturday morning cartoon) than in 12 years of school,” he says that anyone can be a constitutional scholar. Since 2014 I have been helping everyday Americans read and study the Constitution of their country and teaching the rising generation to be free. Using news and current events as a springboard, I explain the Constitution and encourage others to stand up and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves, their children, and the nation.

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and save 15%
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.

While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.

The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.

Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.

Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.

America Returns to the Days of King George

America Returns to the Days of King George

It seems the American people have not learned from their history. Rather we have reverted to a state of servitude similar to the colonies in 1776. I wonder if, when those 56 men pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in support of the Declaration of Independence, they ever conceived that not only would the American people return to a life of dependence, but that we would do so willingly…

The Most Patriotic and Accomplished President in Modern Times

The Most Patriotic and Accomplished President in Modern Times

The only president who – despite the most maligning, deceitful, and aggressive media against him 24/7/365 x 5 years – delivered what he promised the American people if elected. The least unemployed Americans in over 50 years. Made America’s energy, oil, and gas independent of oil cartels for the first time ever. In fact, he made the USA a premier exporter, helping make the price of petrol…

War, Intelligence, Energy and Elections – a Discussion with Senator Bob Kasten

War, Intelligence, Energy and Elections – a Discussion with Senator Bob Kasten

The Other Side of the Story with Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris – Should we stand up to Putin even if it means nuclear war? What is the proper role of NATO in Ukraine and the rest of Europe? Who will the Democrats select to be their 2024 presidential candidate? Who really pulls the strings in the Biden administration?  Former senator and congressman Robert Kasten, Jr., an aid to both Reagan and Trump…

Worshiping Moloch, the god of child sacrifice

Worshiping Moloch, the god of child sacrifice

Let’s give the Democrat Party some credit, the Democrat Party is not godless. In fact, they worship Moloch, the god of child sacrifice. A widespread religion in the Middle East 3,500 years ago. The great news is, that these Democrats who dedicate their being to the murder of unborn children, can through time travel, themselves disappear…

How to Bring Washington DC Back Under Control

How to Bring Washington DC Back Under Control

As more and more people are vetting their candidates for state offices based on how they fulfill their oath of office, our states will not only change, but can regain the fortitude to stand up to Washington, D.C. As more and more states restore themselves to their position as parties to the compact that is the Constitution of the United States, Washington, D.C. will…

FDA and CDC Approve Vaccines for Kids 6 Months and Q & A 28 on America Out Loud PULSE

FDA and CDC Approve Vaccines for Kids 6 Months and Q & A 28 on America Out Loud PULSE

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Peter McCullough and Malcolm Out Loud – The outrage regarding the FDA and CDC approving and promoting the vaccines to our youngest is being heard from coast to coast. As one listener questions… “I hope Dr. McCullough covers the terrible FDA approval (and maybe soon school mandate) of the vax for kids. It’s pure corruption and evil. This is where I draw the line.”

Florida’s Gov Ron DeSantis & Lawmakers Bring 145 New Laws Into Effect July 1

Florida’s Gov Ron DeSantis & Lawmakers Bring 145 New Laws Into Effect July 1

It’s been noted that throughout the governorship of Ron DeSantis during the health crisis of COVID-19, thousands of Americans have relocated from all across the nation to reside in Florida because of the conservative God and Country values that DeSantis stands for. The Florida governor signed 269 bills in the year 2022, 11 of those measures were vetoed and 145 are new laws taking effect…

Why Roe v. Wade Will NOT Impact the Election

Why Roe v. Wade Will NOT Impact the Election

The media is trying very hard to turn the upcoming midterm elections into a referendum on abortion…A large segment of the left is once again losing its mind and proving to independent voters what independent voters were already figuring out – that the political left is led by a radicalized group of thugs who want to burn down our nation and make us live under an ultra-authoritarian communist tyranny…

The Elimination of Gun Owners is the Goal of Red Flag Laws

The Elimination of Gun Owners is the Goal of Red Flag Laws

Red Flag Laws are a calculated start of a slippery slope to control our young people, eliminate the 2nd amendment and disable Americans from the right to defend themselves. Every totalitarian society started by eliminating the right and/or opportunity for the populace to self-defend. So which is it? Well-intentioned ignorance? Or an insidious plot to change and control our American way of life?

America Out Loud 6 years

Celebrating 6 incredible years fighting to restore liberty and justice to our beloved America.

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.


Here we take on the challenges of our generation so that we can preserve future generations. Please consider making a contribution in the fight for liberty!


The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

Truth For Health

Apple Podcasts

COVID Solution Summit

Apple Podcasts

Evacuating Americans & fully-vetted Afghan's at Risk - Help Us!

Apple Podcasts

Empowering and mentoring conservative trailblazers from Generation Z to win!

Apple Podcasts

Turning Point Action is Recruiting Precinct Chairs - Become a Grassroots Warrior Today!

Apple Podcasts

Please join us to protect the Supreme Court:
Sign the Petition!

Apple Podcasts

The LATINO USA EXIT from the Democrat Party, click for details...

Apple Podcasts

Fighting corporate censorship and ensuring voter integrity...

Apple Podcasts

Support wounded and fallen police officers. The Wounded Blue.

Wounded Blue
Share via
Copy link