The question is incomplete. This is the complete question:
Which of the following is not a permissible circumstance under which to implement a prior restraint, under Near v. Minnesota?
a. obscene publications.
b. Fighting words likely to promote immense violence.
c. Obstruction of military recruitment.
d. Publication of troop movement in the time of war.
Answer:
The answer is b. Fighting words likely to promote immense violence.
Explanation:
Although it is possible for certain words to cause immense violence when used in publications, under Near v. Minnesota (a United States Supreme Court decision which declared that prior restraints on publication violated the freedom of speech and press) it is still not permissible to implement a prior restraint, even when publications use fighting words that are likely to promote immense violence.
Answer:
General Deterrence
Explanation:
Deterrence is of two types including:
1. General deterrence.
2. Specific deterrence.
General deterrence: The term general deterrence is defined as the process that is being designed to stop or prevent various crimes in a general population. In this scenario, this creates is a huge impact on people related to the legal punishment threat because the person involved in any illegal thing shall be punished in public in a way to humiliate the person. Hence, the other person who sees this will be scared of doing similar crimes.
In the question above, the statement signifies the "general deterrence".
One particular organization that fought for racial equality was the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) founded in 1909. For about the first 20 years of its existence, it tried to persuade Congress and other legislative bodies to enact laws that would protect African Americans from lynchings and other racist actions. Beginning in the 1930s, though, the NAACP's Legal Defense and Education Fund began to turn to the courts to try to make progress in overcoming legally sanctioned discrimination. From 1935 to 1938, the legal arm of the NAACP was headed by Charles Hamilton Houston. Houston, together with Thurgood Marshall, devised a strategy to attack Jim Crow laws by striking at them where they were perhaps weakest—in the field of education. Although Marshall played a crucial role in all of the cases listed below, Houston was the head of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund while Murray v. Maryland and Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada were decided. After Houston returned to private practice in 1938, Marshall became head of the Fund and used it to argue the cases of Sweat v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Board of Regents of Higher Education.
