Though the outcomes of Schenck and New York Times differed, what did these decisions have in common

The options

A-The government has a heavy burden to prove harm.

B-The government can limit speech that causes harm.

C-The government has unlimited power to limit speech.

D-The government must follow the First Amendment

The CORRECT ANSWER IS B-

B-The government can limit speech that causes harm.

Explanation:

Though the outcomes of Schenck and New York Times differed, it pinpoints that Government can restrict speech of people or organizations whose intentions is to damage and cause more harm to it as an institution.

Take a look at the scenario of Schneck Vs. the United States for instance, where the decision was in the favor of the United State.

It judged that the defendants who shared out fliers to draft age men in order to notify them not to be involved in the induction, was purposely preventing or hindering the proper flow of the draft and judged it as a criminal offense. This shows enough evidence that the government possess the power to restrict speech if it's aftermath is going to cause more harm to it as an organisation.

hi~~

i would say that hybridization occurs frequently in nature, because there are many types of hybrids that have occurred naturally, such as the mule (male donkey + female horse)