Walter Chaplinsky was taken into custody by a police officer who wanted to prevent further public disturbance. While being taken to the police station, he proceeded to insult the police officer after receiving equal treatment from the crowd who was allegedly attacking him. The court denied him First Amendment because it considered that the insults produced by Chaplinsky did not contribute to any "expression of ideas".
Despite considering that it would be a correct action to apply this sort of action on a broader scale, it would certainly lead to the emergence of numerous court cases similar to this one. This would mean considerable additional workload to the courts, hindering the entity's efficiency.
Rights and duties are two phases of the same thing. Rights are considered to be essential for the expansion of human personality. They offer to the individual a sufficient scope for free action and thus prepare ground for self-development. An individual has rights so that he may make his contribution to the social good. One has no right to act unsocially, man’s rights imply his claims on society and duties indicate the claim of society on the individual. This means that an individual owes to the society certain duties as he obtains rights.
Duties of citizens as per the constitution of Nepal
Article 16 to Article 46 of the Nepalese constitution guarantees 31 fundamental rights to Nepalese people. These include freedom to live with dignity, freedom of speech and expression, religious and cultural freedom, right against untouchability and discrimination etc. Article 48 describes duties of every Nepalese. It says safeguard the nationality, sovereignty and integrity of Nepal.
I think is between d or a
Answer:
An religious group is a group of people who practice the same religion (like Catholic Christians).
An ethnic group is a group of people who share cultural ideas and beliefs that have been a part of their community for generations.
Hope this helps!
Answer:
Dred Scott v Sanford
Explanation:
In <u>Dred Scott v Sanford</u>, the Supreme Court justices determined that slaves were property and therefore had no legal rights.
In the Dred Scott v Sanford case, Dred Scott a black American who had lived an a territory were slavery had been banned sued for his freedom arguing that since he had lived in illinois and Wisconsin, both free territory, he was a free man. However, the court ruled that he was still a slave, the Supreme court corroborated the ruling of the lesser court that he was still a slave and therefore had no legal right and cannot sue.
