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!
Answer:
Federal District Court
Explanation:
The first case would likely start in the Federal District Court and could be appealed to the State Supreme Court and United States Supreme Court. As seen in <em>Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. </em>the school district which suspended a girl for vulgar speech off school grounds started their case in the federal court of Middle District of Pennsylvania and eventually appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Edit: <em>Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. </em>did not appeal to the State Supreme Court likely because the First Amendment is a federal law and not state law.
Answer:
Not only has she started drinking copious amounts of alcohol, but she's also started smoking excessively
Answer:
Brayden should dispose of the gum
Explanation:
In the given scenario the law in Singapore states that having chewing gum is illegal. As far as Brayden is in Singapore he should comply with the law there.
The equal protection clause is a provision of law that states that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
Although this gives one the right to take retain actions, in this case Brayden will be restricted from having chewing gum.
Of he is allowed to carry chewing gum then he expects to be treated differently from others in Singapore. This violates the equal protection clause
