No, but i wont tell the little ones that =w='
This question seems to be incomplete. However, there´s enough information to find the right answer.
I understand that this flag has serious important meanings . . . But that does not mean that . . . people may not under the First Amendment show their feelings by what Texas calls desecration of a venerated object. I think it's a most important case. I sense that it goes to the heart of the First Amendment, to hear things or to see things that we hate test the First Amendment more than seeing or hearing things that we like. It wasn't designed for things we like. They never needed a First Amendment.
—William M. Kunstler, Attorney for Gregory Lee Johnson, Texas v. Johnson
Use the drop-down menu to complete the sentence.
In this excerpt, attorney William Kunstler is arguing against his client's conviction.
The main idea of this excerpt is that the First Amendment is essential because it
Answer: allows for symbolic speech
Explanation:
After Gregory Lee Johnson, William Kunstler´s client, was tried and convicted for having burned an American flag to protest against Reagan´s government, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction and the case was sent to the Supreme Court. The Texas v. Johnson court case brought up the question of whether or not the desecration of an American flag is a form of speech protected under the First Amendment. The court ruled that Johnson burning the flag was a form of expression with a distinctively political nature and was protected by the First Amendment.
<span>It was extended in 1925. The federal government ruled that the state government had to carry out the freedom of speech clause in the national constitution, and that they could not deny it based on their state constitutions. The case in which this was ruled was called Gitlow Vs. The State of New York. Gitlow published a left-wing newspaper. The ACLU argued for him.</span>
