contestada

Federal law requires that news agencies not publish or broadcast information that could threaten the security of the nation. However, the Constitution protects the right to free expression of ideas. Judges use past decisions on cases where the law and rights come into conflict to settle similar disputes. A reporter for a national news program is accused of breaking the law. The reporter wrote an article that disapproves of a new federal policy. U.S. officials say the article is unfair and too negative. They say it could upset people and lead some to break laws in protest. The reporter says that news writers have the right to free expression under the Constitution. The reporter also says that the article does not promote unlawful action. Is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law?

Is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or a combination?

Determine the purpose of the law. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Write in complete sentences.

What could happen if the law did not exist? Include the impact on government officials, to support your answer. Write in complete sentences.

Relax

Respuesta :

holesstanham

1. This is a matter of constitutional law, as the reporter is defending her rights as a citizen stated by the Constitution (in this case, her freedom of expression).

2. It is a combination. On the one hand, the case will involve studying the constitution, and what it has to say about the reporter's freedoms. On the other hand, it will require studying the statute that argues that news agencies cannot publish information that can threaten the nation. Finally, case law will likely be relevant if there is a similar precedent in the law.

3. The law that the federal government is presenting is intended to protect the citizen's from threatening information. On the other hand, the law that the reporter is referring to is intended to protect her freedom of expression.

4. If the law to protect citizen's from information did not exist, it could be an obstacle for the effective action of the government. It could also cause panic and animosity among the people. If the law the reporter is defending did not exist, the government would be able to control the press completely.

Otras preguntas