What is the main idea in this ruling? how could it impact united states v. fields? write a two- to three-sentence response that answers both questions.

Sample response: In this case, the Court ruled that states must prove that a person had malice when he or she created a false statement. Malice is an intentional decision to cause harm. This case relates to my case because it explains that speech can be restricted for content reasons if malice can be proven.

i'm free to do it

explanation:

i am 99% sure that the increase of goods was because of nafta nafta stands for the north american free trade agreement to lift tariffs