Question

100 POINTS PLS HELP FAST ON TIME LIMIT!!! In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of a family of children who were sent home from school because they refused on religious grounds to salute the flag. In ruling in favor of the family, Justice Robert Jackson wrote:

To sustain the compulsory [required] flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel [force] him to utter [say] what is not in his mind.

Which best states the meaning of Jackson’s ruling?

It means that the flag salute should be expected of all students regardless of their beliefs.
It means that making people say something they do not believe goes against their right to free expression.
It means that the Bill of Rights is limited because public authorities can still make people act in certain ways.
It means that it is acceptable to require the flag salute because it does not actually change a person’s beliefs.

Answer 1

Judge Jackson has a substantial judicial track record, having served on federal courts longer than several of the current justices had when they were appointed. But the great bulk of her opinions are from her eight years on the Federal District Court in Washington, as a trial judge, before Mr. Biden elevated her in June to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Those opinions are diligent and exceptionally thorough, exhibiting a sure command of both the facts before her and the relevant legal materials. But they are often less illuminating than appeals court rulings that establish precedents and bind other judges.

Answer 2

It means that making people say something they do not believe goes against their right to free expression.

Step-by-step explanation:

To sustain the compulsory [required] flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual's right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel [force] him to utter [say] what is not in his mind.

It means that making people say something they do not believe goes against their right to free expression.

although it was up to public authorities to convince him to say what is not his mind; he did not have to in any way, because he has rights-- they could try to convince him but anything that is 'force' could potentially be illegal actually:

the use of intimidation or threats to force (or prevent) someone to do something they have a legal right to do (or not to do). Charges typically are enhanced if physical force was used or threatened

In conclusion," B-It means that making people say something they do not believe goes against their right to free expression," because it not only goes against their right of free expression but threatens the authorities for intimidating threats when they have a legal right to not say what is not his mind.