In the case,Texas v.Johnson,the texas court tried and convicted Mr.Johnson for violating the statute that prohibited the desecration of venerated objects e.g the American flag that could arouse anger in other individuals.Johnson appealed with the argument that the actions were a "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.
Texas laws punishes actions such as flag burning that might arouse anger in other but it this case the outrage alone couldnot justify for supressing Johnson's freedom of speech.In this perspective,the Texas law discriminated upon view point in that though it punishes such actions,it still specifically exempt prosecution of actions with similar defination such as burning or burying of worn-out flag.
Therefore, flag burning in Texas v.Johnson constituted a symbolic speech and is protected by the Firts Amendment.
In the beginning of the 1930's though the NAACP's legal Defence and education fund began to turn to the courts to try to make progress in over coming legally sanctioned discrimination from 1935 to 1938 the legal arm of the NAACP was headed by Charles Hamilton Houston
For the first question I would say A, and the second question is the civil war
The best option would be that "<span>The U.S. imposed a treaty that forced Latin American countries to democratize or face crippling sanctions," since it was never in American's best interest to force the democratization of the region. </span>
During the word war 2, the battle of Coral sea was significant because it. so after that Japanese didnt want to fight with Australia :)))
i hope this be helpful
(not trying to sound all needy but please give brainliest im trying to get to 5)
