The question is incomplete. This is the complete question:
Which of the following is not a permissible circumstance under which to implement a prior restraint, under Near v. Minnesota?
a. obscene publications.
b. Fighting words likely to promote immense violence.
c. Obstruction of military recruitment.
d. Publication of troop movement in the time of war.
Answer:
The answer is b. Fighting words likely to promote immense violence.
Explanation:
Although it is possible for certain words to cause immense violence when used in publications, under Near v. Minnesota (a United States Supreme Court decision which declared that prior restraints on publication violated the freedom of speech and press) it is still not permissible to implement a prior restraint, even when publications use fighting words that are likely to promote immense violence.
Answer:
Explanation:
Many workers in the late 1800s and early 1900s spent an entire day tending a machine in a large, crowded, noisy room. Others worked in coal mines, steel mills, railroads, slaughterhouses, and in other dangerous occupations.
The main goal of the labor unions during the late 1800s and early 1900s was fighting for better wages, better working conditions that included safety and reasonable hours of work. The struggle was also against child labor and getting health benefits for the workers and their families.
The labor movement in the United States grew out of the need to protect the common interest of workers. For those in the industrial sector, organized labor unions fought for better wages, reasonable hours and safer working conditions.
Answer: No, Marie is wrong.
Explanation: A contrat is a written agreement between two parties that is legally binding or enforceable by law.
in the case of Donny and Marie, there truly was a contract but it wasnt legally binding which is one of the characteristics of a contract. it can also be called the object of the contract.
