Answer:
1. "Loose lips sink ships." Share certain information can jeopardize OpSec, and result in advantages for enemy troops.
2. 1A should protect ALL speech. censoring specific words is a form of bias. People should instead be taught coping skills when presented with ideas they find objectionable. "Hate speech" presumes there is a speaker and a listener. The speaker can share anything he likes. The listener is the regulated party. When presented with objectionable ideas, he has choices: he can choose the respond calmly and reasonably; he can respond with aggression; or, he can ignore it and walk away.
The most likely answer is that the victims should not be able to sue the manufacturer of a violent game for a design effect. This is because it is difficult to establish a direct connection between the video game and the mass shooting. It is likely that thousands, or even millions of other people have played the game constantly and have not developed these tendencies. Moreover, even if the tendencies were developed, this would not mean that the thoughts would develop into action. Thefore, it is unlikely that the manufacturer would be considered liable.
Answer:
Hello. You have not added any text or other media to complement your question. As a result, there is a lack of information for your question to be answered, but <u>I can help you by stating that candidates who participate in debates, seek to be elect for the president of the republic or state governor.</u>
Explanation:
Political debates are important for voters to hear proposals and justifications from candidates for the main political positions (president and governor). That way, voters can listen to their candidates, observe their skills, reasoning ability, communication skills, posture and proposals. This allows voters to make better choices regarding voting and to have more contact with potential candidates.
