What does this timeline show about the role of the Supreme Court in defining limits on free speech?

1914: World War I begins.

1917: Charles Schenck distributes pamphlets encouraging U. S. men to
resist serving in the military.

1919: The Supreme Court rules that Schenck's action is not protected because it poses a "clear and present danger" to safety.

A. It shows that the Supreme Court is empowered to speak on behalf of the nation.

B. It shows that the Supreme Court can only limit free speech in ways that are already written in the Constitution.

C. It shows that the Supreme Court can set new rules for free speech if the Court feels circumstances require it.

D. It shows that the Supreme Court cannot limit free speech unless Congress agrees.

1- in bradbury's  fahrenheit 451, all books are banned and burned upon discovery. in the nazi germany, books considered to be subversive to the regime would be burned to keep the population from generating ideologies that could challenge nazism.

2- was bradbury correct in his literal interpretation of  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.”? in some way, yes. when knowledge is not only limited, but also controlled, the people tied to it are led to their demise. just like in the novel, people in nazi germany who owned  subversive books were punished not only by the burning of their property, but also by the discrimination that followed after such a public form of consequence. if a person was seen being confiscated  subversive  books, they may be considered as an ally to the jews, which meant pretty much the same as being the enemy back then. because of the extreme exclusion and suffering that followed this punishment, it's almost like dying a slow death.

in this way, the phrase  “where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.” is both literal and figurative.

explanation:

mark brainliest and have a great day!

the answer is "focused on"

lol gave an answer 1 week that's the answer for those who need it in the future xd

some people are just against it im not sure but i think everyone deserves to be treated equally i think people have a problem with it because its different and not like everything else i hope this !

< < < emily> > >