What are the events of sorry wrong number

Which excerpt from tinker v. des moines shows how precedent support an argument? a. "as we shall discuss, the wearing of armbands in the circumstances of this case was entirely divorced from actually or potentially disruptive conduct by those participating in it. it was closely akin to 'pure speech' which, we have repeatedly held, is entitled to comprehensive protection under the first amendment. cf. cox v. louisiana, 379 u. s. 536, 555 (1965); adderley v. florida, 385 u. s. 39 (1966)." b. "while the absence of obscene remarks or boisterous and loud disorder perhaps justifies the court's statement that the few armband students did not actually 'disrupt' the classwork, i think the record overwhelmingly shows that the armbands did exactly what the elected school officials and principals foresaw they would." c. "i, for one, am not fully persuaded that school pupils are wise enough, even with this court's expert from washington, to run the 23,390 public school systems [n4] in our 50 states." d. "under our constitution, free speech is not a right that is given only to be so circumscribed that it exists in principle, but not in fact. freedom of expression would not truly exist if the right could be exercised only in an area that a benevolent government has provided as a safe haven for crackpots."

Now pick a section from chapter 1 of the call of the wild in which buck is interacting with another character. imagine that section narrated in first person point of view from one of the character's perspective, and rewrite it in the space below, attempting to use a similar writing style as the original author. then, in a second paragraph, consider this: are you able to explore some of the same ideas and themes when viewing the situation from the character's first person point of view, as compared to when it is narrated from london's third-person limited point of view? explain. your response should be be about 150 words in total.

4. at the conclusion of frankenstein, robert walton has an encounter with the monster, who arrives after victor frankenstein has died. perhaps surprisingly, the monster mourns his creator and expresses remorse over the fate that victor suffered. the monster pledges to destroy himself and then departs, disappearing as he goes further north. how does the monster’s behavior and attitude in this part of the novel affect the way readers view him? is he sympathetic? is he more hateful because it is only after victor has died that he relents? how does the change in the monster fit with the theme of duality in the novel?