Me! will give brainliest! federal law requires that news agencies not publish or broadcast information that could threaten the security of the nation's armed forces in times of conflict. however, the constitution protects the right to free expression of ideas. judges use past decisions on cases where the law and rights come into conflict to settle similar disputes. in one case, new york times vs. united states, the supreme court decided that a newspaper could publish information about the military that the president said should remain secret to protect the troops. the justices said the president failed to prove that the information could threaten the nation's security. federal officials accuse an online newspaper of violating the law against publishing secret information about the military. one of the newspaper's reporters posted comments online about her friend, who is a soldier serving overseas. on her personal website, she posted a picture of him, where he is stationed, and negative opinions of his commanders, including the president. the newspaper insists that the reporter did this on her own time and that the newspaper is not responsible. the reporter maintains that whether at work or not, she has the right to express her opinions freely under the constitution. u. s. government officials say that the posting of the information could put the soldier in harm's way. officials also say that her negative opinions could encourage others to stop supporting the soldiers and break laws in protest. they insist that because a reporter for the newspaper, people could believe that her ideas are those of everyone working for the newspaper. they say the newspaper and the reporter have threatened the safety and security of the armed forces. is this a matter of constitutional, criminal, civil, or military law? how do you know? is the source of the law a statute, regulation, case law, or a combination? how do you know? determine the purpose of the law related to the scenario. is the law intended to protect people's safety or people's rights? explain your response and thoughts on what could happen if the law did not exist. use details from the scenario to support your answer. do you think the reporter has a valid argument? in other words, should government change the law or make an exception? use details from the scenario to support your answer.

constitutional because the constitution is involved such as other people

1. This is a matter of constitutional law.

2. This is a combination of a statute and case law.

3. The law is intented to do both, to protect people´s safety and also to protect people's rights.

4. The reported has a valid argument.

Explanation:

1. The constitutional law is the law that includes the fudamental rights. In the Constitution one of the fundamental rights is the freedom of speech, by which a person is free to express and has a right of an opinion.

2. The source of the law is a combination of both statute and case law: statute law because it deppends on the facts of the case, you can analyze is the freedom of speech and of opinion can harm in a way to others, in this case this enters the statue law. It can also be considered a case law because it considers the interpretation of the court about a law, for instance if sharing a news could affect national security for instance.

3. The existence of the Constitutions is essential for a civil way of life, it is there to protect and promote rights. It is created by the people that represent the citizens of a country. It is most defenetly usefull for order and organization, and to handle in a no arbitrary way the problems. In this scenario the Consitution promotes the freedom of speech, if this wouldn't exist no regulations would be possible. Constiutional rights also protects people, so that they can be safe from harm. If someone is acussed of somthing the law can handle the matter, if people know the law they can both respect and be benefit from it.

4. I this the reported had a falued argument. The freedom of expressing protects people that want to share there opinion. The constitutional law that valids freedom of speech should protect the reported from the Federal law. The president in this case wants to contol what people says about military actions and the rule of the president. I think that this by no means puts in any danger the military work. I think that when people express discontent, or disagreement, this helps to improve and to generate debate to promote new ideas. It is fundamental for a country to allows thei citiezens to express discontent.

russia because it is the biggest state

president carter called the victims of kidnapping "victims of terrorism and anarchy" and added that the united states was not going to give in to blackmail. in the united states, they see hostage-taking as an outrage on the part of the islamist movement that violated the principle of international law on the immunity and inviolability of diplomats and their embassies.

carter refused to yield to the demands, khomeini used the situation to consolidate his power and nullify the challenges of the moderate wing of his government, headed by its president. the euphoria over the humiliation of the most powerful nation distracted the iranian people from the economic difficulties of their country. carter, in april 1980, broke diplomatic relations with iran and imposed a trade embargo, except medicine and food. iranian funds in the us they were frozen and accounted for to compensate the hostages when they were released and to pay the demands of us companies against iran.