Question

Exas v. johnson:" according to the information in paragraphs 1 and 2, what is most likely the author’s purpose for including the following in the excerpt? "held: johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the first amendment." a) to show that the supreme court agreed that johnson should be convicted b) to show that the supreme court agreed with the texas statute on flag burning

Answer 1

The author's purpose for including the statement in the excerpt is to demonstrate that the Supreme Court concluded that Johnson's conviction was in violation of the First Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

The author's purpose for including the statement "held: johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the first amendment" in the excerpt is to demonstrate that the Supreme Court concluded that Johnson's conviction was in violation of the First Amendment. This statement supports the Court's ruling that the act of flag desecration, including burning, is a protected form of free speech under the First Amendment. It does not imply that the Supreme Court agreed with the Texas statute on flag burning.

Answer 2

The author's purpose for including the statement in the excerpt is to show that the Supreme Court agreed with Johnson's argument that his flag burning was protected under the First Amendment.

Step-by-step explanation:

The author's purpose for including the statement "held: Johnson’s conviction for flag desecration is inconsistent with the First Amendment" in the excerpt is to show that the Supreme Court agreed with Johnson's argument that his flag burning was protected under the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. Johnson in 1989 held that burning the flag is a form of symbolic speech and is protected by the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature, thus making it protected under the First Amendment.

This decision has important implications as it clarified that flag desecration is considered a form of political expression and protest and is protected under the First Amendment, even if some members of the audience find it offensive or disagreeable.