Answer:
The Miller Test is the primary legal test for determining whether expression constitutes obscenity. It is named after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. California (1973). The Miller test faced its greatest challenge with online obscenity cases. In Ashcroft v. ACLU (2002), a case challenging the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act, several justices questioned the constitutionality of applying the local community standards of Miller to speech on the Internet. In this photo, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU Ann Beeson gestures during a news conference outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 in Washington. The ACLU claimed COPA violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. They challenged the law on behalf of online bookstores, artists and others, including operators of Web sites that offer explicit how-to sex advice or health information. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court’s ruling that COPA did not pass the strict scrutiny test used to judge obscenity cases. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, used with permission from the Associated Press)
Explanation:
d
Thank you, I appreciate the warning.
Yes. she shows the smaller things that jesus can do and that ordinary people can do.
Answer: The answer is explained below
Explanation:
A layoff is a termination of an employment at the employer's will. A layoff may be either temporary or permanent and can occur for reasons such as new technology, downsizing, or changes in market conditions. In this case with regards to the question, Amina told Bryan that his service is no longer needed due to an economic circumstances. While accepting and signing a job offer, there are legal agreement which has to be made.
Here,an anticipatory breach occurs when Amina states, in advance of the due date that Bryan was meant to start the job that she intends not fulfilling the agreement of having him as a delivery man.
In this situation, Bryan can't sue Amina because it wasn't her fault that an economic situation arises. If he had left a previous job to take Amina's offer, that could have been a different case.
According to the labour welfare law, in case any employer rejects the job offer the individual can raise a concern against him. An economic conditions can come up anytime so Bryan shouldn't sue Amina.
