No, an expressive speech should not have any restrictions as long as they are being respectful to their audience. It should have no restrictions because it is meant to let you tell people how you feel about that event,or object. If the speech is talking bad about something and not respectfully stating their opinion then they can be asked to stop, or to change their essay/rewrite it more respectfully.
Answer:
Stuffing envelopes with information about a candidate to send to voters.
Explanation:
<em>Technically</em>, they are all ways of participation within a election campaign, whether it is direct or indirect participation, or participation from the result of such campaign. However, the most direct way that a citizen participates that may help with the campaign is A), as they are actively participating in the process of sending out (mostly positive) information on their own candidate in hopes of getting he/she enough votes to win.
Learning about candidates may be a indirect way of participating in an election, as one must understand the candidates to adequately be able to vote. However, it is not exactly a participation within a election campaign, though it may lead to it.
Learning about the process of how to register to vote is a citizen actively trying to meet the requirements in order to be able to participate directly in the booth, but does not exactly help with a election campaign directly.
Watching a debate also does not help with a election campaign. A debate is typically hosted by a third party, and after deciding on the campaign they like the most, they may join the party and actively help then, but they are not exactly participating in a campaign during the debate.
Therefore, A would be your best answer.
~
Answer:
If the court applies the Stare decisis doctrine, the case will not be dismissed.
Explanation:
The stare decisis doctrine will provide the necessary legal bases for the case to proceed within California. This will happen because there is a legal decision applied throughout the national territory that states that this type of clause, which presents a selection forum, is inexorable. This happens because the AOL clause violated, in fact, a very strong public policy, so the judges are obliged to continue with the case, within the state where the public policy was violated.
Answer:
I think its A. It sounds way better than the others an makes more sense.
Answer:
tort is like when you sue some one. It is for personal injury ect. You are not placed in jail just fines and things like that
crime is where you go to jail maybe and it is explicitly against the law ex sealing
Explanation:
