Answer: The situation is unconstitutional because it is defamation or libel
Explanation: The freedom of the press is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the American Constitution, which regulates all the rights and obligations of the media, including the press. This means that everyone has the right to freely report and write, and freely express their opinions without censorship. However, there are some limitations when it comes to press freedom. There are, among other things, the extent to which the journalist, i.e the writer of the article, can secure the protection of a confidential source, then also indecency. In this our case it is defamation which, when it comes to defamation in the press, calls libel. If Nancy wanted to make up a story about a politician she personally dislikes, then it is defamation. The First Amendment also does not guarantee the journalist the right to interfere personal feelings about the politician with professional writing in the newspaper. This means that if Nancy made up the story of a politician without real evidence of any wrongdoing, then it was defamation in the newspaper, therefore, libel.
The answer is subconscious. It is because our subconscious is the part of the mind in every individual in which a person is not fully aware of all the things around him or her but in a way these influences other people without knowing it and the defense mechanism are the one responsible for protecting an individual in things that may affect the person without knowing it such as his or her feelings.
Um do u have answer choices to this cause I understand I just don't know what your looking for
Answer:
Piercing the corporate veil
Explanation:
This are the options that come with this question:
- hiding behind the corporate skirt.
- whistleblowing.
- piercing the corporate veil.
- limited liability.
This is an example of the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil." This describes a situation in which the shareholders of a corporation can be held personally liable for the debts and liabilities of a corporation, according to a court. This is in contrast to common practice in corporations, which assumes that, if a corporation is sued, the shareholders cannot be brought into the lawsuit. "Piercing the corporate veil" usually occurs in the case of fraud, or in the case of egregious and willful activity that put corporate gain over the public good.
