What are the pros and cons of the first amendment

History

1 answer:

Ira Lisetskai [31]4 years ago

7 0

The first amendment is the guarantee of free speech to the citizen.

Explanation:

The first amendment is the basic tenet of a good democracy in that it safeguards the right of the people for free speech.

However, it is a long standing debate on how to say what is free speech and what is not free speech.

This is something that has been in contest for a long time.

While free speech allows for people to express their opinions freely without punishments it can also be harmful for the integrity of the nation.

You might be interested in

which of the following is not true about the gettysburg address A:it was over 2 hours long B:it made a point that the dead shoul

Eddi Din [679]

D it did not the speech was in the time

3 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What where the two great strains of chinese philosophy that came into full flower during the zhou dynasty?

Serhud [2]

Confucianism and Taoism were the two great Chinese philosophies that came out of the period between 1046 and 771 BC known as the Zhou Dynasty.

6 0

3 years ago

The Supreme Court’s use of selective incorporation

spayn [35]

The correct answer is letter c, which is, it takes a subjective case-by-case approach to the question of incorporation in regards with the supreme court’s use of selective incorporation. The case-by-case approach is a way of using a decision forcing case in which the individual involved is likely to play a role of having to face a hard decision that occurred in the past.

5 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

I NEED HELP PLEASE ASAP!

Nutka1998 [239]

Answer:

Most Likely C; The East India Company did not allow adopted children to claim inheritance.

Explanation:

According to the doctrine, any Indian princely state under the suzerainty of the British East India Company (the dominant imperial power in the Indian subsidiary system), would have its princely status abolished (and therefore be annexed into British India) if the ruler was either "manifestly incompetent or died without a male heir"

The latter supplanted the long-established right of an Indian sovereign without an heir to choose a successor.

In addition, the British decided whether potential rulers were competent enough. The doctrine and its applications were widely regarded by many Indians as illegitimate.

8 0

3 years ago

What can be inferred about the process of amending the constitution

rusak2 [61]

The framers made it complicated but possible so that future generations can amend it based on new principles, but it needed to be a well-thought-through process.

3 0

4 years ago

Read 2 more answers