One historian writes that the Code of Hammurabi was the most important source of modern law. Another historian argues that modern law is based on the legal system of the Roman Republic. What could be the reason for the difference of opinion between these experts?

one historian did not examine primary sources

one of the historians' research has serious flaws

they used different secondary sources for research

their interpretations of historical facts vary

I would say the fourth one: Their interpretations of historical facts vary.

- "schenck v. united states, case in which the u.s. supreme court ruled on march 3, 1919, that the freedom of speech protection afforded in the u.s. constitution's first amendment could be restricted if the words spoken or printed represented to society a “clear and present danger.” "

- speech aimed to potentially create danger could be banned.

< 3

just finished this it is b. centrifugal force