Answer:
In the excerpt, Justice Holmes is arguing, as he himself said " that whether the personal right of free speech can be infringed is a question of proximity and degree". In other words, free speech can be restricted if the speech is calling for the commitment of a crime.
In the case that brought the Court's decision, two members of the Socialist Party of the United States were convicted because they were distribuing flyers that opposed military drafting for World War I. Opposing the draft, or promoting opposition to it, was illegal under the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Supreme Court considered that those prohibitions were constitutional because the nation was at war.
To sum up, what Justice Holmes is saying is that expressing opposition to a war is a form of free speech, but promoting draft-dodging is not.
Answer:
Censorship
Explanation:
Censorship been defined historically
as earlier restriction that is courts and government cannot block any publication or speech before it has happened. It is based on the principle that a law has not been broken yet until an illegal act has been committed.
It is suppressing of speech,writing that is deemed not right, offensive, indecent, or controversial. People can become censore through a group of people trying to erase the history and culture of another and when individuals issue a complain about certain content to someone in power, having them ban the information in turn.
I think the correct answer from the choices listed above is option B. Tariffs and other trade barriers are economically harmful because the higher prices forced <span>upon the people by the tariffs ultimately will cost more jobs than they save. Hope this answers the question.</span>
There’s no picture , couldn’t answer maybe u should redo it