<span>The High Court has interpreted concepts like the First Amendment in ways that have covered both parts of social interaction. The Court has found that individual liberty to express oneself freely, worship without coercion, and to gather without recompense is to be protected, but the common good is to be promoted by also placing limits on just how far these strictures can be stretched before they become a danger to overall community well-being, such as when groups are gathering or people have made statements that are known to be inciting danger to others.</span>
Everyone was treated equally and fairly, sometimes.
This is called a
"Tragedy".<span>It is a show or other artistic work that relates the fall or hardship
of a person who, while experiencing sufferings, cop with that responsibly and
deals with the circumstances and problems that he or she faces, and who in this
way exhibits the value of human exertion and human presence.</span>
Answer:
4. instant judgment of the situation that evokes them
Explanation:
Moral emotion: The term moral emotion is defined as those emotions that are being associated with the welfare or interest of either a particular society considered as whole or with a single person except the agent or judge. Most of the people's emotions are being morally directed even in the absence of their knowledge.
Example: Guilt related to immoral behavior, disgust at violations related to moral norms, sympathy related to other's suffering, etc.
Answer:
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court <u><em>ruled that bans on dangerous speech were constitutional.</em></u>
Explanation:
In the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. the United States, the court deemed the actions of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer as unconstitutional. It deemed them criminals for trying to obstruct the government's drafting of men for war and that it is an act against the security of the nation.
This case revolves around the claim that the obstruction of Schenck and Baer's free speech was unconstitutional and they have the right to express their opinions. But the court insisted that since the leaflets they distributed were against national security, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
Thus, the correct answer is the second option.
