Following the 1966 supreme court decision in miranda v. arizona, police began informing people placed under arrest that they "have the right to remain silent." what basic freedom is this meant to protect, and how does it affect arrested individuals?

The protection against self-incrimination; it informs them that speaking to law enforcement could incriminate them.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona, the court examined the rights protected in the

Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Ernesto Miranda was arrested after a

crime victim identified him in a police lineup. The police officers questioning him did not inform

him of his Fifth Amendment right that prevents government from forcing citizens to give

evidence against themselves. He also was not informed of his Sixth Amendment right to the

assistance of an attorney. In 1966, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and ruled in favor

of Miranda. As a result, police officers now read the Miranda warning to suspects before they are

arrested. This helps ensure suspects understand they have the right to not answer questions, or

say anything at all, if they choose. However, if a suspect chooses to speak despite the Miranda

warning, what they say could be used in court. The Miranda warning also explains that suspects

have the right speak to an attorney.

no, x cannot be the same number. in all of them, x is 1. for one input there is another output. g is not a function

give brainliest