-QuESTID nI I.) CoMsfifuTlO/vlAL IavJ To-\a1 it SfftTi/tfeS,, ElRST AM0\lDM0\tT
AMD STATUTORY V/AfcUENlESS :
Because ; First fcMDMQvT freedoms meed Meath img space to
Sui^VII/E, GOVERMMEMT MAY REGULATE IMTRE AREA OMLV MARRDuJ
SPECIFICITY f

QUESTION] 1) CoMSTlTUTlDM/H LAWl To-WIT FREE 5PEECU THERETO ,
CLEAR AMD PRE5EMT DAMGER :
ALTHOUGH- SPEECH 15 OfTLKi PROVOCATIVE AMD CHALLEkIGlMC, IT
IS MEI/ERTHFLESS PROTECTED AGAIMSf CEALSDRSHIP D(i PUMlSAmtMT
UlvlLESS IT SHOI aJM TO BE LIKELY TO PRODUCE A CLEAR AMD P&SeMT
BAkIGER OF A SElRlDUS SUlfeSTAAmUE EVIL THAT RISES FOR ACoUE
PUBLIC IM1CDMVEM IEMCE, AM/\1 oYaMCE, DR UMRCST?

_QU£STlQRJ 3.) CQMiSTl IUTlOMAL LAL/ OP EVIDENCE TO-i/UiT BURDEN
M „ lrt ,, & PFOOF THERETO UMIAUJFUL ACT:
UNLAWFUL - mm CRIMIMAL OR TORTIDWS OR fetfTH AMD IMCLUDES
CoMGRbCS, IaJitH THE EMACTMtfnJT Of adl
DUfcTICIEMDUin iMTEkID TO RESTATE, CLARlFV, AMD SIMPUfY ^ AMCIEMT IMlZiT OF ERROR
CORAlTl MOftlS. DDES IT PRoYlbE AM EKPEDITIDUS RFvVlThV Fh\1gsyMr™

Whether the First Amendment requires the government to regulate speech with narrow specificity, even when the speech is provocative and challenging but not likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil