In your opinion, explain which side of the civic discourse you agree with and why. argument 1: di modica "fearless girl' distorts 'charging bull's' integrity and intentions of american strength in response to the stock market crash of 1987. or argument 2: de blasio: "men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we nee the fearless girl."

Argument 2 feels closer to what I believe to be an honest and ethical response to the 30 years of history between the crash of 1987 and the installation of "Fearless Girl."

One could argue that the values espoused by the Charging Bull ultimately led to the financial collapse of the 2000s. As such, Argument 2 is stronger as it is better to stand by a message of a young fearless girl standing up to adversity than stand by the reckless reaction of a charging bull that led to a period of deregulation and reckless capitalism.

- "schenck v. united states, case in which the u.s. supreme court ruled on march 3, 1919, that the freedom of speech protection afforded in the u.s. constitution's first amendment could be restricted if the words spoken or printed represented to society a “clear and present danger.” "

- speech aimed to potentially create danger could be banned.

< 3