Answer:
C, Treaty of Paris
Explanation:
In The Treaty of Paris, Great Britain acknowledged the U.S.A. as independent and gave up territory east of Mississippi.
<span>This is an example of
"</span>
McDonaldization of Society".
McDonaldization is a phrase created by George Ritzer, a
sociologist, in his book The McDonaldization of Society written in the year
1993. The procedure of McDonaldization can be compressed as the manner by which
the standards of the fast-food eatery are coming to command an ever increasing
number of parts of US culture and in addition of the rest of the world.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options provided, we can answer the following.
Two general and connected understandings of privacy have been identified: privacy as a right to be "left alone" within a personal zone of solitude, and privacy as the right to control information about oneself.
This right to control information about oneself is very important at this time when we share our data through internet sites. We as individuals have the right to decide what to do with our personal information. And websites need to comply with the protection of this data. If we really think of it, we do not know what is the real use of the information we share on the internet and that represents a risk.
Answer: a. The McCain-Feingold Act violates freedom of speech.
Explanation:
Issue ads refer to a scenario where a candidate is named or discussed in relation to an issue without however, supporting or decampaigning an opponent.
This was restricted after the McCain-Feingold act of 2002. The Act restricted the use of Issue Ads within <em>30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election </em>for a person running for any Federal Office<em> </em>if the broadcast cost more than $10,000.
The Supreme Court ruled in its decision that unless the ad was expressly supporting or decampaigning a candidate, it should be exempted from the Act. The decision of the Court was also noteworthy as the Court declared it was against greater regulation of political speech.
A supporter of this Act would therefore probably seize upon this last part and say that the Act violates freedom of speech.
