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 articles of confederation
I think d is the correct answer hope this helps
Tina has the right to sue the company that sold her the product arguing that it had been recalled as potentially dangerous to consumers and she should be compensated for the damages caused by the dryer.
<h3>What should Tina do?</h3>
Tina must seek help from the Federal Trade Commission, this institution is in charge of protecting consumers and promoting competition between companies.
Based on the foregoing, Tina can rely on this institution to sue the company that sold her the dryer because this product had been withdrawn from the market for being dangerous.
So the company that sold him the dryer was committing a crime for selling this object. Additionally, this company must compensate Tina for the damages caused by this product.
Learn more about consumer in: brainly.com/question/950909
