Question

Can someone help me with a quick civics question?

Answer 1

what is it?

Answer 2

w8 one sec

Answer 3

Federal law requires that news agencies not publish or broadcast information that could threaten the security of the nation's armed forces in times of conflict. 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. In one case, New York Times vs. United States, the Supreme Court decided that a newspaper could publish information about the military that the president said should remain secret to protect the troops. The justices said the president failed to prove that the information could threaten the nation's security.
Federal officials accuse an online newspaper of violating the law against publishing secret information about the military. One of the newspaper's reporters posted comments online about her friend, who is a soldier serving overseas. On her personal website, she posted a picture of him, where he is stationed, and negative opinions of his commanders, including the president. The newspaper insists that the reporter did this on her own time and that the newspaper is not responsible. The reporter maintains that whether at work or not, she has the right to express her opinions freely under the Constitution.
U.S. government officials say that the posting of the information could put the soldier in harm's way. Officials also say that her negative opinions could encourage others to stop supporting the soldiers and break laws in protest. They insist that because a reporter for the newspaper, people could believe that her ideas are those of everyone working for the newspaper. They say the newspaper and the reporter have threatened the safety and security of the armed forces.

Answer 4

Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer.

Answer 5

i really need help on it i have to submit it by tonight

Answer 6

btw i will medal and fan

Answer 7

This is not the right section for your question. Post this in the History section so more people can help. Thank you :)

Answer 8

i did but no one is helping me

Answer 9

well my good sir. what exactly is the law related to this

Answer 10

i think it is military law

Answer 11

hmm I still wonder, what's the actual question =)

Answer 12

Determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. Is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? Explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. Use details from the scenario to support your answer.

Answer 13

okay. Well do you think it is about protecting someone or protecting their rights?

Answer 14

im really stuck on this

Answer 15

that's copy/pasting
not really a personal explanation per se

Answer 16

i am not sure it doesnt say anything about rights...

Answer 17

at that rate, I might as well check in google and copy/paste as wel l=)

Answer 18

anyhow

if it helps

Federal law is Federal law, meaning, passed by the Legislative body, that is, Congress
and Constitutional right or laws or rules, are separate from that

so, if the constitution protects something, and the Congress says something else about it, and they conflict, like in this case
then the Legislative body, should, if it doesn't want the conflict, override the constitution

by constitutional articles, Congress can override the constitution
assuming I think it gets some big majority, but it can

if it has chosen so far not to do, is due to some friction or apprehensions on it

now, the issue of safety or national security and freedom of speech
well, those two are conflicting, always I'd say

and the federal goverment, will always claim is a matter of safety, and national security
in order to have some publication of a "covert" operation not being leaked

but their claims are often times bogus, and so, judges, have come down to
" if you want us to go along with secrecy, you better establish national security risk to the 97% or so"

Answer 19

i only get one part lol

Answer 20

gosh i really do h8 school -.-

Answer 21

sorta like.... the girl crying "wolf" too many times, and after a bit, when it was a real wolf, noone believed her

that's what has happened to federal goverments and judges
judges are reluctant, as well as congress folks, to override the constitution
because, executive branch officials, will use whatever necessary gimmick, to get their policymaking, and that's a known pattern

so, if the federal goverment is going to cry "wolf", judges expect it to show enough documentation, that it is really so, to a great percentile

Answer 22

....?

Answer 23

is this ok - it is intended to protect people’s safety. For example, it states that New York Times vs. United States Supreme Court decided that a newspaper could submit information about the military the president should keep secret to protect the soldiers.

Answer 24

then i'll add more

Answer 25

well... is not intended to protect safety per se
more like protecting freedom of speech

in that Law case
becasue the paper wasn't muzzled
and the judges weren't convinced that the "wolf" the goverment cried, was real

Answer 26

can i fix it real quick will u still be here?

Answer 27

well, this is a math channel though, you may want to try hmm on other poper channel

:)

Answer 28

o..

Answer 29

i asked the history one but no one helped me

Answer 30

but as I said, if it helps
freedom of speech and "claimed" national security risk
are always at loggerheads

Answer 31

ok so i just add those things and i will be good

Answer 32

or like George Orwell would put it

in times of War, truth is the first casualty

Answer 33

ok thx :D