France’s physical characteristics; major landforms, its absolute and relative location, climate, weather and other physical attributes. Cultural characteristics; Population, Religion, ethnicity, food, dress Urban and Rural Divide, urbanization and its impact on the people political organization and issues (how they are politically organized) Historical Narratives such as impact of colonialism, major events that have impacted the nation. Economic characteristics; physical location, natural resources, minerals, geographic location, colonial heritage, and natural disinter. Lastly, a summary of France; what’s unique about France, thought and perceptions, spatial connections between the physical, cultural and economic characteristics, and if France will change politically, economically or culturally.
Beside the hypothetical part of the problem, the right to speak freely is constrained by human rights instruments as it isn't absolute. Based on the three phase test in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, confining discourse is an authentic activity if the required criteria are followed. First, the mediation ought to be in consistence with the law and ought to be 'defined with adequate exactness to empower the resident to direct his conduct'. Second, the lawfully authorized intercession should seek after a genuine point, for example, assurance of national security, open ethics, wellbeing or request or ensuring the notoriety and privileges of others. Third, there ought to be a need for the limitation towards a real point. The ECHR abridged this by expressing that: 'Opportunity of articulation is liable to various exemptions which, in any case, must be barely translated and the need for any confinements must be convincingly established.' A similar test is connected worldwide to quantify the authenticity of limitations including the International Covenant, Universal Declaration, African Charter and American Convention. In Europe, in spite of the fact that Article 10 of the ECHR takes into account different types of opportunity, Article 10(2) confines this opportunity to conditions, customs, punishments dependent on what is expressed in the law to keep up a fair society. This shows how opportunity of articulation isn't an outright thus limiting it ought not be viewed as an infringement of the privilege of free discourse. In Canada, for instance, the Canadian Charter keeps up and applies a sensible parity to control free expression, though in France, Germany and Austria holocaust refusal is condemned due to generally critical reasons. For its part, in the UK, laws like the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Public Order Act 1996 direct open request matters yet this does not undermine the privilege of free speech. On the other hand, in spite of the US first Amendment which fortifies the privilege of free speech, case law, for example, Snyder v Phelps demonstrates a use of limitations there. Finally, in Australia, an application like the one in Canada is connected to strike a harmony between free discourse and destructive speech.>GET ANSWER