” American Greetings”. Make sure you discuss the following issues in your paper:
- What multiple of EBITDA do you think is justified? What is the implied share price that corresponds to that multiple?
- Please model cash flows for American Greetings for fiscal years 2012 through 2015 based on the two sets of ratios in case Exhibit 8. Based on the discounted cash flows associated with the forecast, what is the implied enterprise value of American Greetings and the corresponding share price?
- What are the key drivers of value in your model?
- What do you believe to be the value of American Greetings shares? Do you recommend repurchasing shares?
Accordingly, my opposing side’s second argument lies in the fact that no rights are absolute. Rights must be limited by respects for others, and by the needs of society as a whole. The British Lord Bhikhu Parekh writes, “Although free speech is an important value, it is not the only one. Human dignity, equality, freedom to live without harassment and intimidation, social harmony, mutual respect, and protection of one’s good name and honor are also central to the good life and deserve to be safeguarded. Because these values conflict, either inherently or in particular contexts, they need to be balanced” (Mutabazi 3). In response to Parekh’s argument, I agree that no rights are absolute. Even Michael Tomasky, editor of The Daily Beast, agree how “nearly every idea in the Bill of Rights has limits” (Tomasky 2). Additionally, no amendment, not even the first amendment, is absolute without the direct consent of the people. However, I believe the essential point is that a democracy cannot legitimately restrict speech within public discourse, solely on grounds of the undesirable or even dangerous worldview expressed. Governments may certainly impose viewpoint-neutral ‘time, manner and place’ restrictions, e.g. on speakers’ noise levels or on avoiding obstructions to free circulation. Contrary to existing British, European and international law, however, I maintain that a full-fledged democracy cannot legitimately ban messages from general public discourse solely for their hideous philosophies. Another problem that arises when trying to ban hate speech is a single, universal definition of “hate speech” does not exist. Because, hate speech exists as an ill-defined concept intended to be elastic enough to allow whichever clique happens to control our institutions at any given time to silence some of their opponents. As soon as we say hate speech is not permissible, we have just handed draconian powers of censorship which have no place in anything remotely resembling a democracy, over to the person or people allowed to define what that term in their opinion means. More specifically, if hate speech were to be legally banned, it would give unstable leaders like Trump the ability to censor whatever he considered hate speech at the time. As the Daily Sh>GET ANSWER