Answer: "Shays’ Rebellion was a series of violent attacks on courthouses and other government properties in Massachusetts that began in 1786 and led to a full-blown military confrontation in 1787. The rebels were mostly ex-Revolutionary War soldiers-turned farmers who opposed state economic policies causing poverty and property foreclosures. The rebellion was named after Daniel Shays, a farmer and former soldier who fought at Bunker Hill and was one of several leaders."
Some of the things that motivated some colonists to remain loyal to the British Crown were:
- C. They wanted to continue selling their goods to the British for a profit.
- A. They feared they would be taken as prisoners of war when the British suppressed the colonial rebellion.
<h3>Who is a Colonist?</h3>
This refers to an individual who is subject to a higher power and authority based on the fact that the country has colonised his country.
According to American history, we can see that America was once a colony of Britain and when there were calls for independence by American patriots, some colonists were reluctant and were still loyal to the crown because of the benefits of trade.
Read more about colonisation here:
brainly.com/question/8048490
This was a pull factor because it attracted immigrants to come to America.
Answer: The freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Explanation: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation. The Supreme court specifically held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or person running for public office, not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation, they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether or not it was true.
The Court said it was necessary to protect the erroneous statements about public officials that would come up in free debate, otherwise critics of public officials will censor their speech for fear of potentially unlimited liability which could severely limit the information that could be given or published about the character of such officials.