Police arrest protesters for wearing items of clothing associated with a particular political faction. In the ensuing trial, the police claim that the protestors were disturbing the peace and promoting violence. They also claim that many fights have been started by people wearing the same factional clothing. The prosecutor argues based on Schenck v. United States (1919). The protestors’ lawyer argues in their defense, citing Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Which central concerns are being weighed in these arguments?

The prosecution is arguing that symbolic clothing is a form of fighting words, while the defense is arguing that symbolic expression, such as expressions involving the flag, has protected status.
The prosecution is arguing that symbolic clothing is automatically associated with illegal actions, while the defense is arguing that the government has no appropriate interest to protect in this case.
The prosecution is arguing that certain clothing constitutes a reliable trigger to violence and illegal actions, while the defense is arguing that the act of wearing certain clothing cannot be criminalized unless it leads to violence and disruption.
The prosecution is arguing that symbolic clothing is lewd and offers no redeeming value, while the defense is arguing that the government cannot act in defense when the act of wearing the clothing causes no harm.