Can someone give ma an argument from the Tinker v. Des moines court case.

Father arthur terminiello, in an auditorium in chicago, delivered a vitriolic speech in which he criticized various political and racial groups and viciously condemned the protesting crowd that had gathered outside the auditorium. policemen assigned to the event were unable to prevent several disturbances by the "angry and turbulent" crowd. the police arrested terminiello for "breach of the peace." he was then tried and convicted for his central role in inciting a riot. in terminiello v. chicago (1949), the court found the ordinance unconstitutionally infringed on first amendment rights. noting that "[t]he vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion," the court held that speech could be restricted only in the event that it was "likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest." source: oyez, terminiello v. chicago (1949) identify a constitutional provision that is common to both terminiello v. chicago (1949) and schenck v. united states (1919). based on the constitutional clause identified in part a, explain why the facts of terminiello v. chicago led to a different holding than the holding in schenck v. united states. describe an action that members of the public who disagree with the holding in terminiello v. chicago could take to limit its impact.