Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the First Amendment's free speech protections

No question identified. : = . : "SYNLUWLS yo neg guazveysny 2M Sz AG H7y YUL IZ Twlzpyzspoonn 22 SZ yuo pez Kyla ZF 20009 sexgyy) NeW! 2AYMOD pz Sz AO WIS od VISN WLP WIP WAS LYHD 02, Ua JO LPPMBLSPEHY NZ LISA by PU KATO FO 2p MMNZOC AS (20% 2) APEVIIn WY MZ FSZY JO WY LZ SZ 09 0 02 BzvopZop Lb) 20N SAG wooly) ZU, MA fOZLALZ JWOD LHS TELLIN JO WeBLUPZA po 2YrD C2 SAavimety 22 SUNY OL NCSI WeMLen sprcity 9000 SEAN W. way” miv7 2 (re In OL SPabzizgzsed$ 2 WIZ (NU WILT FL SBLISTIIN PSC 79 IWZWWISEW YW LZ SE WELL setpezzZZy) ULAY LYPMIG SNIZS TIGL HAN wey Lyn02 Jo 2n0 PIS OD Amp, pzySY EWN yd) Aa 2ONIOR Yeyne (HY 2st 02 LINZ C2 weEZLOW OW 6 Zz PUB, PANDA LIAQWOSZA NALMIAOU pz SZ ‘SIZQLFI WRIZ9 WE (TF AO *8YNAD IMG Ys Meqjey LON sx0g 2Yn0? SEO, FAL QUY GLNIZY NCZLZLCY NGA GUY $8220) Zn JO ssuNvzt] JWNIWYWNALY FHL, S2LYIOZIN 20907 SeeiOvY PIBQUL 2 Neasepzn pepe WGHV) yp JZ SZ (em yszind —TENSHIIN Qe I2NU2)' 97 Aq GAZZVYLIY LON WY ANY YOM? Yod Lewoysennd 30 2ubY Kiez es spp We wv szg71 Ag Wve) 228 yyy Meby IIE SZ HO REPIWY UT NAN pOLayeh ZIPPY YLWIZA UZE SZ pemran ee WA, Z LAN BON 2 (:72"702 10 2IwinSESSY WEL27 AMZ) "oWeZ2I20O? WEY) ¢L L2090 19 2rIzLsuZ OL eZ) WY "pay, yRUAT Ieee) eL Bwzwh WHO? LON Sz YLYO Kd ¥ PAY — OZLeTAN LW Ipeui WAZS V 2Z SZ SIINOMINS QL 97720 ON TOR YIZ/ “ZS LOWEN INIT SZ pVIWEY VII AZ NBLWZ\ prompt WIZ) Y2Z Sz ; Lyra wad 49 0S OG 82 YHIYO GLZ IZ SURHS LIWNTTHR 40 SonzQVzd UV S07VSZY ZW OF 2v-0) Wz SHEN NY LMISZY JO WY LZ SZ ‘SSPI20H%) 7422200. JO MYT yO HImOD ING xyl WY SAMGZI04) BU -71dY 11°77) ZN SIX] LUO WEYL SEO WHY PBZVIOSAT JO BMY 2Z SZ PUTAS GeZzrvoysAy 2ON SZ UH wd NHN NeLNILY JO IW LZ SE | G3iNaS3ud (S)NOLLS3ND . ,