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

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED . , ; ; 7 © AN ynid 8 THESTIATE O° Noa LaWh SELIG Zo Lurestanet & DE sie04 Miseso0k8. Py RUDI. Panel RELAKE Le NuTHBNTLL B Lad 00 LIARKS COBH Ta ALBUS ? Uaveacey QU RIE TE Garin PTURLUTES PAISLEY ZrcancbnaTe we Mnbf 20 f82Foum CLovdESTUE OPERATIONS To nLCIUCE AIMS Ov» THEA ou faUbLPRetnst 4 leh” To POGLY BRLenge DULEMON ? (UY SUL TELS Zo) THEPBIRIE Lio Dy PU SPET BYU Ly e1Bv OM FHSEQNUE), | 5 BY WHY 8 auDees Oeauet J. MemesEinng On Yee TRL aCe CarncundtS Ream THIS i » Diss p8 BINS 4G, 2081? &)ugny Xs fhe finds) W002 Wig The Chins Ii L Powe EMULE Pups, LILLE Z PleulOe HAE OF bycobuts PoAlaoucs Ae te1% > Bike (Sued SPO CABSLUMW) Dr OGHEE DCO AAOOT YU CASS eIid Cor nmnavSongg elsnul a TE NUE wooo hus we Heeaies iG Fo Cienlt Feecisin Ul [Ma GFACLAS 7” Lith Pr Hele, CaersSIINe, ORBEA US Cols DUCTED ed ty tpppinu,) SuORADD Toman : PLUS Wau 14 OLoUt Lo FEMALE! / Woy 607? 51) LWUNY A 2 TBE D/COUeHLANED [15 LovtrL.UP Vit. muMlBIS Comme TAO Kraan B4 Lino Ev Abicémsut OPeL9mA.S 7ONOUE Coe eeR yor HAS L4H Met ger’ YE UO Wife A188 CLEMES Zo FVOMLSUAES DOK To HC RECLIOBIE SF 1) ba a Leeartr OSUUSD IR BTL RH UB Les06s Tree liad To CMU UESUES LT 1 SLMOTIAS BL4 Lue VOLO? Teamaee4 Pures By Pypsssunet 80 ens Liaw To Svan Ob goa ERCRLENOYT BISLECKND Fo bE Passes BYTDCE (LG Osmie lat? rime) J Powis WES Te ustoter BA (USConte? Apres UsOD Chae CADRE Mas & Tenney ob MES Bytosuce (to Lt wroBk Reson ot ) Car )eA LANDED To Vis, Dich bes’ opticove BFF 236ena2y ox.