Answer:
The decision of the Supreme Court affected the US citizens' right to freedom of speech.
Explanation:
Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the US Social Party. Socialists were against the world war that was occurring at the time since they believed that the US involvement only benefited the rich. The poor soldiers were the ones who were sent to fight. As a result, socialists also urged US workers to oppose the war. Schenck participated in many anti war activities and he mailed leaflets to soldiers trying to convince them of resisting the draft. As he violated the Espionage Act, because he caused insubordination in the military forces, he was convicted. However, after being tried, Schenck argued that his right to freedom of speech protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution had been violated. The Espionage Act limited the freedom of speech in times of war. For the Court, Schenck's actions had put other people at risk. As a result, in wartime reasonable limits can be put the 1st Amendment's provision governing freedom of speech.
Answer:
The statement that best holds would be: Statement 1
Explanation:
John Locke wanted us to be born with these following rights: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. He enquired these as natural laws because these are the things we shall be born with, and they cannot be taken away.
John Locke believed that all people were born as equals, and so we should be treated that way.
Hope this helps! :)
The statement that "In the looking at diversity feature "socioeconomic stereotyping" Christa Kilvington, a straight-a student and single mother on public assistance, suggests that the stereotypes people use to classify her shape the way they communicate with her" is true. In the article "In he looking at diversity feature" <span>she describes what it is like being a "4.0 college student" as well as a "welfare mom".</span>
<span>these behaviors could be measured using the natural procedure known as Permanent product
permanent product is the end result of behavioral modification in order to achieve the desired outcome. It considered as 'permanent' because the subject will most likely to make the behavior into a daily habit. </span>
Answer:
Quid pro quo harassment
Explanation:
Quid pro quo harassment is a type of harassment in the workplace that requires the harassed person(employee or potential employee) to offer something(sex) to get an appointment(in the case where the person is yet to be employed) or get promoted to a higher role( in the case where a person is employed already in the organization) in the organization.
