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

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Question 1.) ConstituTionaL Law To-wiT SIATATES, FIesT AMENDMENT AND STATUTORY VAGUENESS : : BECAUSE FigsT AMENDMENT FREEDOWIS NEED BREATHING seAcE To SURVIVE, GOVERNMENT MBY REGULATE INTHE AREA onILY NARROW —— SPELIFICITY 2 | QUESTION 2) CONSTITUTIONAL Li To-wit FEE SPEECH THERETD, CLEAR ANID PRESEAIT DANGER : ALTHOUGH SPEECH 19 OFTEN PROVOCATIVE AND CHALLENGING. tr IS NEVERTHELESS PROTECTED AGAINST CENSORSHIP oR PUNISHMENT UNLESS IT SHOWN To BE LIKELY To PRODUCE A CLEAR BND PReSextT DANGER OF A SERIDUS SUASTANITWE EVIL THAT RISES oR Bove PUBLIC INCONVENIENCE, ANMOYPNICE, DK UNREST ? QUESTION 3.) CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF EVIDENCE To-WiT BUKDEN ‘ , OF PROOF THERETO UNLAWFUL ACT: UNILAWEUL’MEANS CRIMINAL OR TORTIDUS OR ROTH ANID INCLUDES WHAT WOULD BE CRIMINAL OR-ToRTIDUS BUT FoR THe DEFENSE Nor AMOUNTING TO TUSTIFICATION OR PRIVILEGE. QUESTION 4). DID CONGRESS. Witt THE ENACTMENT OF ad SUBAICIENDUM INTEND TO RESTATE, CLARIEY, Raid SWWPUFY THE PROCEDURE IN THE NATURE OF THE ANCIENT wir oF EO CRE ee: DOES i PROVIDE An! EXPEDITIOUS REMEDY FoR ECTIN(> ERRONEOUS PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETIDAS RESORT TO HABERS CORPUS, RETIOAS witour