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!
The National Government gains it's power through the constitution.
Um well it is 2020 im not surprised but uh sure?
Answer: The drivers on prescription drugs are hard to convict is said in an article in the New York Times. So the drivers are also at the risk of arrest who are taking a legal dose of prescribed drug.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Many people believe that the "driving under the influence" involves only the consumption of illegal drugs and the consumption of booze. This will result in the penalizing the people who are involved in this and suspending the license of that person.
But if you are on a dose of a legal drug and then an accident happens, then also the person is at the risk of an arrest. But it is not very easy to convict that person because he is under the influence of a drug which has been prescribed to him by the doctor. In this case, it is not easy to take test of that person to know the level of drugs or taking any charge against him is also tough by the police.
