Answer:
The United States first amendment carried more protection and less restriction in its implementation and here is why.
The edict of the United States does not qualify the application of the clause granting freedom of expression. That of the United Kingdom does. In doing so, it ensures that Freedom of Expression is used appropriately in that it must be targeted at the common good and the well being of the state.
It states, for instance, that
<em>"Public authorities may restrict this right if they can show that their action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:
</em>
- <em>
protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety
</em>
- <em>prevent disorder or crime
</em>
- <em>protect health or morals
</em>
- <em>protect the rights and reputations of other people
</em>
- <em>prevent the disclosure of information received in confidence
</em>
- <em>maintain the authority and impartiality of judges"</em>
Cheers!
You need to be able to have rock hard evidence to put a criminal away depending on the jury and what they think but in most cases you need evidence that can for sure put them away.
Answer:
If it wasn't intentional and also apologized for it then there can be another way of solving the eye problem
Answer:
a. First
Explanation:
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press, provisions also found in state constitutions. The first amendment was written as part of the Bill of Rights and completely prevents US citizens from being prohibited from exercising whatever religion they want, expressing themselves in any way they wish, and prevents the press from being censored.
