The events surrounding Tinker v. Des Moines involved a school. Which statement best explains why the Supreme Court ruled in the students' favor? The events involved symbolic speech without disruption. The First Amendment always applies to issues of speech. The events involved controversial issues. The protest was an act of civil disobedience.

The events which surrounded the Tinker v. Des Moines case involved a school and the statement which best explains why the Supreme Court ruled in the students' favor is:

According to the given question, we are asked to show the statement which best explains why the Supreme Court ruled in the students' favor.

As a result of this, we can see that from the sequence of events which occured in the  Tinker v. Des Moines case, the main reason why the Supreme Court ruled in the students' favor  was because the events involved symbolic speech without disruption.

Therefore, the correct answer is option A

Read more about Tinker v. Des Moines here:

link

The events involved symbolic speech without disruption.

Explanation:

Tinker v. Des Moines was a suite filed against a district school in 1965. The case was on a public district school in lowa who suspended three students who were protesting for the Vietnam War by wearing black armband in the school. The armband that they were wearning were a devise of symbolic speech. Such protest and speech rights for students is protected under the First Amendment.

The students were protesting the war in Vietnam for bringing back the soldiers back home. The school suspended three students, who denied to remove the armband, and against this, their parents filed litigationagainst the school.

When in 1969, the case entered the Supreme Court, it ruled the suit in students' favor stating that their protest involved symbolic speech, which is protected under the First Amendment, and because their protest using symbolic speech was not bringing disruption.

So, option first is correct.

same

they had banned mine while i was answering a question

yes, obviously. that violates r@pe and p*dophilia laws, which are some pretty serious laws if you ask me.