Question

johnsons argument
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 its 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 wasnt 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 clients conviction.
the main idea of this excerpt is that the first amendment is essential because it
makes flag burning a crime
allows for symbolic speech
promotes nonviolent actions

Explanation:

The text emphasizes that under the First Amendment, people can show their feelings (even through what Texas calls desecration of a flag). This indicates that the First Amendment allows for symbolic speech (as flag - burning is a form of symbolic expression). Flag - burning being a crime is the opposite of what the excerpt argues. While non - violent actions might be a by - product, the main focus is on the right to express (symbolic speech).

Answer:

allows for symbolic speech