Pregunta
upstudy study bank question image url

Saved Reading Assignment: Freedoms of Speech, Assembly, and the Press Read the Freedoms of Speech, Assembly, and the Press section and then answer the following questions. Freedom of speech can be silenced Multiple Choice when it is highly likely that immediate harm will result from the speech. when the speech is unpopular. under no circumstances. when the speech has a tendency to incite crime or disturb the public peace.

Ask by Cross Sanders. in the United States
Jan 23,2025

Solución de tutoría real

Respuesta verificada por el tutor

Responder

Freedom of speech can be silenced when it is highly likely to cause immediate harm or when it incites crime or disrupts public peace.

Solución

To answer the question regarding when freedom of speech can be silenced, let's analyze the provided options: 1. **When it is highly likely that immediate harm will result from the speech.** This option suggests that speech can be restricted if it poses a clear and present danger of causing immediate harm. This aligns with legal standards in many jurisdictions. 2. **When the speech is unpopular.** This option implies that speech can be silenced simply because it is not favored by the majority. However, freedom of speech protects even unpopular opinions. 3. **Under no circumstances.** This option suggests that freedom of speech is absolute, which is not the case in legal contexts where certain limitations exist. 4. **When the speech has a tendency to incite crime or disturb the public peace.** This option indicates that speech can be restricted if it incites illegal actions or disrupts public order, which is also consistent with legal principles. Based on this analysis, the most accurate answers are: - **When it is highly likely that immediate harm will result from the speech.** - **When the speech has a tendency to incite crime or disturb the public peace.** However, if you must choose only one option, the first option is often the most cited in legal contexts regarding the limitation of free speech. **Final Answer:** When it is highly likely that immediate harm will result from the speech.

Revisado y aprobado por el equipo de tutoría de UpStudy

error msg
Explicar
Simplifique esta solución

Beyond the Answer

Freedom of speech isn't absolute! It's a complex balance between expression and public safety. For instance, shouting “fire” in a crowded theater could lead to chaos, so that's considered a classic example where speech can be legally restricted if it's likely to cause immediate harm. This highlights how context matters in these situations! On a broader scale, the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution has been at the heart of numerous legal battles. For example, landmark cases like Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio have helped define the limits of free speech against incitement and advocacy of violence. Each case shapes our understanding of freedom in a way that reflects societal values and expectations!

preguntas relacionadas

In the 2020 elections in Colorado, voters were asked to decide whether to amend a voting provision in the state constitution. The provision is shown below, with the change in wording shown by striking out the old wording and using all caps for the amended words. Every-cittzen ONLY A CITIZEN of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, has resided in this state for such time as may be prescribed by law, and has been duly registered as a voter if required by law shall be qualified to vote at all elections. The amendment was approved by the voters. Replacing "Every citizen" by "Only a citizen" seems like a minor change in the provision. But what does the change really mean? Complete parts (a) through (c). a. Is there a situation in which a person might qualify to vote under the old provision but not under the new provision? Hint: Consider whether there are any circumstances under which a non-citizen might vote under one wording but not the other. A. Yes; while the old provision says that "every citizen" of the United States meeting the other conditions can vote, it is does not address whether non-citizens might be allowed to vote in some elections. B. Yes; the old provision explicitly states that non-citizens who meet the age, residency, and registration requirements can vote in all elections. C. No; the meanings of the two provisions are the same regarding whether non-citizens might vote. The age, residency, and registration requirements are all the same. D. No; the new provision is actually less restrictive on the voting rights of non-citizens than the old provision. The age, residency, and registration requirements are less restrictive.

Latest Social Sciences Questions

In the 2020 elections in Colorado, voters were asked to decide whether to amend a voting provision in the state constitution. The provision is shown below, with the change in wording shown by striking out the old wording and using all caps for the amended words. Every-cittzen ONLY A CITIZEN of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years, has resided in this state for such time as may be prescribed by law, and has been duly registered as a voter if required by law shall be qualified to vote at all elections. The amendment was approved by the voters. Replacing "Every citizen" by "Only a citizen" seems like a minor change in the provision. But what does the change really mean? Complete parts (a) through (c). a. Is there a situation in which a person might qualify to vote under the old provision but not under the new provision? Hint: Consider whether there are any circumstances under which a non-citizen might vote under one wording but not the other. A. Yes; while the old provision says that "every citizen" of the United States meeting the other conditions can vote, it is does not address whether non-citizens might be allowed to vote in some elections. B. Yes; the old provision explicitly states that non-citizens who meet the age, residency, and registration requirements can vote in all elections. C. No; the meanings of the two provisions are the same regarding whether non-citizens might vote. The age, residency, and registration requirements are all the same. D. No; the new provision is actually less restrictive on the voting rights of non-citizens than the old provision. The age, residency, and registration requirements are less restrictive.
¡Prueba Premium ahora!
¡Prueba Premium y hazle a Thoth AI preguntas de matemáticas ilimitadas ahora!
Quizas mas tarde Hazte Premium
Estudiar puede ser una verdadera lucha
¿Por qué no estudiarlo en UpStudy?
Seleccione su plan a continuación
Prima

Puedes disfrutar

Empieza ahora
  • Explicaciones paso a paso
  • Tutores expertos en vivo 24/7
  • Número ilimitado de preguntas
  • Sin interrupciones
  • Acceso completo a Respuesta y Solución
  • Acceso completo al chat de PDF, al chat de UpStudy y al chat de navegación
Básico

Totalmente gratis pero limitado

  • Solución limitada
Bienvenido a ¡Estudia ahora!
Inicie sesión para continuar con el recorrido de Thoth AI Chat
Continuar con correo electrónico
O continuar con
Al hacer clic en "Iniciar sesión", acepta nuestros términos y condiciones. Términos de Uso & Política de privacidad