The answer is a sweeping generalization. It is applying a
general rule to a specific occasion without appropriate evidence. While the
opposite of the sweeping generalization is hasty generalization is applying a
specific rule to a general situation without proper evidence.
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.
The purpose of the Eisenhower Doctrine was to<span>aid any Middle Eastern nation requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism</span><span />
