Answer:
Limiting freedom of speech can cause rebellion amongst citizens.
Explanation:
When the government or any other institution tries to limit a person's freedom of speech it can cause significant issues. This is especially true if the person's speech is trying to bring to light a social, legal, or economic problem within a country.
For example, if the US government passed a law that was wildly unpopular and limited the speech of people who protested against it, it would cause even more problems within the US. This is due to the fact that the government is trying to control what people say and how they feel.
Answer:
The difference between is waterways are the means of transportation which is used for carrying heavy and bulky goods and runs over water whereas roadways is the means of transport through which we can travel through the road
Explanation:
Speed on land is more compared to water transport, also suitable for both short and long distances. And water transport is the slowest mode of transport.
Brainiest will be appreciated :)
The answer choice which represents drugs taken by pregnant patients and are more likely to have effects on a fetus are; Lipid-soluble drugs.
<h3>What drugs have effects of a pregnant patient's fetus?</h3>
It follows from transportation of materials through the placenta to the fetus that it has been observed that;
Lipophilic substances such as Lipid-soluble drugs as in discuss are able to cross the placenta readily as opposed to their polar, and protein bound counterparts which encounter difficulty in a bid to cross the placenta.
Remarks:
a. Drugs that are highly polar
b. Ionized drugs
c. Lipid-soluble drugs
d. Protein-bound drugs
Read more on Lipid-soluble drugs;
brainly.com/question/20813114
#SPJ4
The financial strain of supporting her family on limited income.
Answer:
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court <u><em>ruled that bans on dangerous speech were constitutional.</em></u>
Explanation:
In the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. the United States, the court deemed the actions of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer as unconstitutional. It deemed them criminals for trying to obstruct the government's drafting of men for war and that it is an act against the security of the nation.
This case revolves around the claim that the obstruction of Schenck and Baer's free speech was unconstitutional and they have the right to express their opinions. But the court insisted that since the leaflets they distributed were against national security, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
Thus, the correct answer is the second option.
