Compare texas vs johnson and the first amendment

In the case,Texas v.Johnson,the texas court tried and convicted Mr.Johnson for violating the statute that prohibited the desecration of venerated objects e.g the American flag that could arouse anger in other individuals.Johnson appealed with the argument that the actions were a "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.

Texas laws punishes actions such as flag burning that might arouse anger in other but it this case the outrage alone couldnot justify for supressing Johnson's freedom of speech.In this perspective,the Texas law discriminated upon view point in that though it punishes such actions,it still specifically exempt prosecution of actions with similar defination such as burning or burying of worn-out flag.

Therefore, flag burning in Texas v.Johnson constituted a symbolic speech and is protected by the Firts Amendment.

the romans were initially interested in expansion via sicily (which at that time was a cultural melting pot), part of which lay under carthaginian control. at the start of the first punic war (264-241 bc), carthage was the dominant power of the western mediterranean, with an extensive maritime empire

i don't understand.. what's the question you're asking here? ?