No, the freedom of speech is one of the most important rights in a democracy along with the freedom of press. It allows several voices to rise and be heard. But it does not means that you can say whatever you want whenever you want.
You can find the foundations of the freedom of speech in the first amendment where it says:
<em>"Amendment I
</em>
<em>
</em>
<em>Congress </em><em>shall make no law </em><em>respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or </em><em>abridging the freedom of speech</em><em>, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" </em>
But there are exceptions to the rule. You can´t say whatever you want as the supreme court have showed in several cases. From this we can extract some categories where the first amendment doesn´t work:
- Incitement: When its directed to inciting or producing inminent lawless action.
- False statements of facts: there are some types of this unprotected according to the supreme court: those said with <em>"sufficiently culpable mental state" </em>can be subject of criminal or civil liability. Secondly libel and slander and finally negligent statements or facts can be subject of civil liability.
As a conclusion we can say that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right in a healthy democracy but we must take care of it. We can´t say whatever we want, well actually we can but you have to be responsible of your acts.
After Charles II's father, Charles I, was executed during the English Civil War, England became a republic for a few years under the leadership (and widely known as a dictatorship) of Oliver Cromwell. This harsh rule lasted about 7 years, and, after Cromwell died (and his son failed at taking his place), political instability led to the restoration of the monarchy, with Charles II taking the throne. He was then known as the "Merry Monarch" because 1) of the relief of the dictatorship of Cromwell being over and 2) he was willing to consent to Parliament's wishes in fear of another revolution.
The correct answer is: Ralph Waldo Emerson spoke out against the acquisition of the Southwest following the Mexican-American War.
Ralph Waldo Emerson was an American essayist, lecturer, philosopher, and poet who led the transcendentalist movement of the mid-19th century. He was seen as a champion of individualism and a prescient critic of the countervailing pressures of society, and he disseminated his thoughts through dozens of published essays and more than 1,500 public lectures across the United States.
Answer:
C. combat soldiers
Explanation:
They were captured and held for ransom or to get information, or killed just for sport.
Hope this helps, and please mark me brainliest if it does!
The results of the industrial revolution were worth the human cost. If you consider what are all the things which we have nowadays as a direct result of the industrial revolution, I think the answer should be quite obvious considering the abundance of goods and the subsequent development of society that followed.
