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!
The articles of confederation
Considering the available options, the choice that is considered as an innovative criminal defense strategy is "<u>battered women's syndrome."</u>
<h3>What is battered women's syndrome?</h3>
Battered women's syndrome is a medical and psychological term that is used to describe the severe mental health ailment resulting from serious domestic abuse.
Given the legal situation, battered women's syndrome is not a typical condition that is common but has been innovated by some defenders to justify their offense so they can get discharged and acquitted.
Hence, in this case, it is concluded that the correct answer is <u>Battered women's syndrome.</u>
Learn more about the criminal defense strategy here: brainly.com/question/11342133
