A. write a 250- to 500-word argumentative essay on one of the listed topics. choose a topic that you find interesting or is somehow relevant to you: • why are there laws limiting the freedom of speech? • why is it important to balance majority rule with minority rights? • is the use of civil disobedience warranted in response to laws that some people feel are unjust? • what is the correct balance between protecting the freedom of religion, maintaining the separation of church and state, and protecting people from discrimination?

Why are there laws limiting the freedom of speech?

Exceptions to freedom of expression in the United States are limitations imposed on the guarantee of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and recognized by the Supreme Court of that country. These exceptions have been created gradually by the need to censor some discourses and expressions in previously defined contexts, limiting the constitutional right of freedom of expression in the United States.

Restrictions based on the communication impact can be categorized as total exception restrictions and less protected restrictions. In addition, those discourses that are categorized as incitement, false statements of facts, offensive speeches, threats and speeches owned by third parties are completely exempt from First Amendment protection. Commercial advertising receives a restriction of less protection, which implies that there are limits to it due to the possibility of government intervention.

Along with communication restrictions, when the government acts as a grantor or representative, is an employer, controls education, or regulates mail, radio, legal bar, military, jails, or immigration, less speech is protected without inhibitions.

The Supreme Court has held that "the promotion of the use of force or of the violation of the law" is not protected when it is "directed to incite or produce imminent illegal action" and "is likely to incite or produce such actions". In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned a criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group to "defend ... violence ... as a means to achieve political reform," because his statements at a rally did not express an immediate intention or imminent to do violence. This rule modifies an earlier decision of the Court, in the Schenck v. Case. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional standard of speech limitation. The main difference is that this last test does not typify "mere promotion" as a crime.

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974), the Supreme Court decided that "there is no constitutional value in false statements of facts." However, this is not a concrete rule, as the Court has had problems with the amount of "freedom of speech that matters", it can be put at risk in order to punish a falsehood.

answer; /// all of the above;

answer; motor learning;