In the 1997 Reno v. ACLU case, the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously voted to strike down the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) because they violated the: a. freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. b. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. c. self-defense provisions of the Second Amendment. d. Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

a. freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.      

Explanation:

In the 1997 Reno v. ACLU case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously voted to strike down the anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) because they violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. The judgement states that anti-indecency provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) over contents on the internet violates the First Amendment, and that while the government has the obligation to protect minors from indecent speech, it should not prevent adults to access to free speech.

every society, in order to meet the needs of it's people, has to answer three basic questions:

- what should we produce?

- how should we produce it?

- for whom should we produce it?

this questions must be answered in order to, option b, aid in production decisions.

every country can't produce everything, no matter how rich their land is. it may be a matter of technology, resources or geographical conditions. so, these three questions must be resolved in order to get the most of the production of each land.

hope this !