The answer is both a and b
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
I would respond to an attorney who argues that the First Amendment protects the actions of paparazzi in any circumstance, without exception, in the following way.
People have the right to exert their own freedom to the degree they do not mess with my freedom of defending my privacy or they do not mess with the privacy of other people.
So this means paparazzi have the freedom to allow for the best shots of artists or public figures when these public figures are in a public sphere or scene: working, public appearances, red carpets, and so on
But there is a fine but notorious line that these paparazzi must never cross. And that is the private life of people. And that always must be respected, no matter what.
Private life is of no interest to the audiences.
The single idea that the author developed about Alexander Freeman from the first line of the story is that he was a person that was used to gambling on a lot of things.
The first line of the story says"
- You were always a gambler.
The opening statements says that Alexander was a person that could put bets on just anything.
<h3>Alexander Freeman</h3>
It says that he was the kind of person that would bet if
- His brother would win a wrestling match.
- spring would come early.
Alexander was a slave that was credited for being good at gambling because he won these bets most of the time.
Read more about A Soldier for the Crown on:
brainly.com/question/18232437?referrer=searchResults
