Final answer:
Justice Souter concurred with the majority in Virginia v. Black, suggesting there was an intent to suppress ideas, which contradicts extensive protections for free and symbolic speech established by precedents like Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question is related to the case of Virginia v. Black, which dealt with the issues of free speech and symbolic speech under the First Amendment. Justice Souter concurred with the majority in this case because he believed there was evidence of an official intent to suppress ideas, which is at odds with the principles set forth by the Supreme Court concerning free expression, particularly decisions like Brandenburg v. Ohio that protect speech advocating for hypothetical revolution or abstractly speaking of the overthrow of the government.
In the context of Virginia v. Black, the concern was about whether the act of cross burning constitutes a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment or whether it could be regulated as an act intended to intimidate. The Supreme Court had to balance the rights to free expression with the potential harm caused by such acts.