Assertion: constitution's provision | /r/CapableOf | criminalize word
Facets:
value: against the flag
type: TRANSITIVE-OBJECT
Source sentences:
text: The Court, relying on Stromberg v. California (1931), found that because the provision of the New York law criminalizing "words" against the flag was unconstitutional, and the trial did not sufficiently demonstrate he had been convicted solely under the provisions not yet deemed unconstitutional, the conviction was unconstitutional.