1968: The Supreme Court rules that a law can forbid symbolic speech in the form of destroying draft cards. 1969: The Supreme Court rules that a law cannot forbid speech that supports violence unless it is intended to immediately cause individuals to break the law. 1989: The Supreme Court rules that burning an American flag as symbolic speech is protected. What do the events in this timeline suggest about how the Supreme Court has interpreted free speech over time?  A. The Court has expanded its definition of what qualifies as speech.  B. The Court has moved toward fewer restrictions on free speech.  C. The Court has moved away from ruling on symbolic speech.  D. The Court has consistently allowed laws to limit free speech.

Which of the following is not a major type of cybercrime reported to the ic3? a. government impersonation scams b. advance fee fraud c. identity theft d. malware fraud

John, a 34 year old father of two children, is a member of a health maintenance organization (hmo) in texas. john has made several trips to an area clinic recommended by his hmo to seek medical attention since finding blood in his bowel movements. he has been taking large amounts of aspirin for persistent headaches but did not realize that this could cause internal bleeding. john was always seen at the clinic by a physician assistant, robert m. but never by a physician. robert didn't ask john about taking any nonprescription medications. john didn't realize that he should mention his over the counter medication (aspirin) consumption. robert tells john to take an antacid preparation to control the bleeding, but does not order any tests. he tells john to return if he is not any better. two days later, john is rushed to the area emergency room with a bowel hemorrhage.1-¿what responsibility, if any, does robert have for john's emergency? 2- does the clinic have a responsibility to provide its hmo members with the services of a physician? 3- what responsibility, as a healthcare consumer, does john have for his own medical condition?

What are the ramifications of different interpretations of the relationship between loac and human right laws?