In brandenburg v. ohio (1969), the court rewrote the test: the state may not interfere with speech unless the speech "incites imminent lawless action" and is likely to "produce such action."

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation:

panem is a communist totalitarian dictatorship where all the resources and how they are allocated belongs to the capitol. the districts exist only to provide goods and services for the capital and most of the citizens live in poverty. it is a police state where the "peacekeepers" use force and threats to keep the people under control. dissent is outlawed and those who disobey the law are executed, flogged, or turned into avoxes. the games are another means in which the ruling elite in the capitol exert their power over the districts. when reading the books i drew parallels between panem and the soviet union and north korea. in no way is panem capitalist. the people in the capitol are wealthy but the majority of them are involved in the government somehow. it was the same way in the former soviet union where bigwigs in the communist party and high ranking government officials were given access to goods, services, medical treatments not available to the general public. if you think panem has a capitalist economy you need to brush up on your economics.