Answer:
Christen is wrong in both counts.
Explanation:
Freedom of speech or freedom of expression is the individual or collective right to enunciate, utter and develop individual or community ideas, opinions and arguments. It is expected that anyone can express their ideas free from retaliation, censorship, or legal action. It is recognised as a Universal Human Right, and most countries in the world include it as part of its constitution.
However, freedom of speech has some limitations, which are imposed aiming to restrain people to harm other individuals or communities. For instance, when someone intentionally lies to commit fraud. These limitations vary from country to country, for instance, Germany forbids speech that denies the Holocaust, but Spain does not. Yet, there are some common limitations to free speech across most UN Member States. These are related to incitement to terrorism or riot, fraud, unauthorised usage of copyrighted material, invitation or incitation to commit a crime, defamation and in many cases obscenity.
Christen yelled "Fire" in an attempt to prompt the theatre audience to vacate. This was a lie, since there was not a fire in the facilities. This can be taken as a fraud, since she tricked the patrons to abandon the premises.
When she was caught, she intended to defame the theatre employee.
In both occasions, she was not protected by freedom of speech principle.
Answer:
The French
Explanation:
I am sorry if I get it wrong but I am pretty sure that is the answer.
The Intolerable Acts were the American Patriots' term for a series of punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea Party. They were meant to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance of throwing a large tea shipment into Boston Harbor in reaction to being taxed by the British. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as the Coercive Acts.
Answer:
An expansive understanding of powers granted to the federal government is the correct answer.
Explanation:
The real reason for maintaining armies is the same reason why some men buy expensive sports cars... overcompensating.
Seriously, think of armies as insurance. Even if it's small, amateurish, and under-funded, it's likely to give potential bullies a little pause. (Of course, a big country like Iraq can sweep up a little country like Kuwait in no time flat, as we all know).
Part of the answer is social/ economic/ political inertia. The military is part of the playground for the elite and privileged. (I use the word playground as in "fork over your lunch money, weakling.") Who wants to get rid of their army just to balance the budget? I sure haven´t seen "fire soldier-boys" on any IMF or World Bank wish lists
A lot of countries, fragile democracies, say, find armies to be an effective tool to use on internal "problems." In a pinch, a loyal military can keep your nation away from chaos. On the other hand, they work equally well to keep dictators in power.
<span>Many countries do get a lot more mileage out of their armies than Iceland or Costa Rica could possibly get. Obviously, a lot of African countries find them pretty handy.
</span>
Also, keep this quote in mind
<span>"It takes two countries to maintain peace and only one to make war"</span>
