Which excerpt from Tinker v. Des Moines shows how precedent helps support
an argument?
A. "Under our Constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only
to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact.
Freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be
exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has
provided as a safe haven for crackpots."
B. "While the absence of obscene remarks or boisterous and loud
disorder perhaps justifies the Court's statement that the few
armband students did not actually 'disrupt' the classwork, I think
the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly
what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they
would."
C. "As we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the
circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or
potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. It was
closely akin to 'pure speech' which, we have repeatedly held, is
entitled to comprehensive protection under the First Amendment.
Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 555 (1965); Adderley v. Florida,
385 U.S. 39 (1966)."
OD. "I, for one, am not fully persuaded that school pupils are wise
enough, even with this Court's expert help from Washington, to run
the 23,390 public school systems [n4] in our 50 States."



Answer :

Final answer:

In Tinker v. Des Moines, precedent was used to support the argument that wearing armbands was a form of protected speech under the First Amendment.


Explanation:

Precedent in Tinker v. Des Moines:

In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the excerpt that shows how precedent supports an argument is option C, where it references prior Supreme Court cases like Cox v. Louisiana and Adderley v. Florida to establish that wearing armbands constituted 'pure speech' protected under the First Amendment. By citing previous rulings, the court in Tinker v. Des Moines reinforced the protection of symbolic speech like wearing armbands as a form of political expression.


Learn more about Tinker v. Des Moines and precedent here:

https://brainly.com/question/1361311