I hope this answers your question..
The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech.
In particular, the majority noted that the Texas law discriminated upon viewpoint, i.e., although the law punished actions, such as flag burning, that might arouse anger in others, it specifically exempted from prosecution actions that were respectful of venerated objects, e.g., burning and burying a worn-out flag. The majority said that the government could not discriminate in this manner based solely upon viewpoint.
Have you ever seen an animal walking sideways, across the sand?
Answer:
D. He or She
Explanation:
We can figure this out by using the standard order of elimination to see which one of the options makes sense. All of the words except for option D. are either much too vauge, don't make sense, or are grammatically incorrect.
The answer is Curfews guarantee that fewer young drivers will be on the road during dangerous late-night hours.
Explanation:
To support the argument government should establish curfews it is a good idea to show the benefits or advantages of this type of policy. This includes factors such as the reduction of criminal acts by teenagers, improvement in school scores, among others. From the options the only one that shows an advantage is "Curfews guarantee that fewer young drivers will be on the road during dangerous late-night hours" because this shows the policy will impact positively society by reducing accidents and other incidents on roads.
