Which central concerns are being weighed in these arguments?
Police arrest protesters for wearing items of clothing
associated with a particular political faction. In the
ensuing trial, the police claim that the protestors were
disturbing the peace and promoting violence. They also
claim that many fights have been started by people
wearing the same factional clothing. The prosecutor
argues based on Schenck v. United States (1919). The
protestors' lawyer argues in their defense, citing Tinker
v. Des Moines (1969).
The prosecution is arguing that symbolic clothing is
a form of fighting words, while the defense is arguing
that symbolic expression, such as expressions
involving the flag, has protected status.
The prosecution is arguing that symbolic clothing is
automatically associated with illegal actions, while
the defense is arguing that the government has no
appropriate interest to protect in this case.
The prosecution is arguing that certain clothing
constitutes a reliable trigger to violence and illegal
actions, while the defense is arguing that the act of
wearing certain clothing cannot be criminalized
unless it leads to violence and disruption.
The prosecution is arguing that symbolic clothing is
lewd and offers no redeeming value, while the