In United States v. Oâ€™Brien, the Court tries to make a distinction between speech and actions that can be separated from the speech and hold important public purposes. How does the Court justify that distinction in its opinion? (hint: you must read the opinion.) Is the distinction helpful? Did the Court make a mistake by not protecting actions that are clearly meant to be speech (performative, expressive)? Provide a defense or a critique of Courtâ€™s decision.
apa format, scholarly sources only, READ THE FULL COURT CASE