Question

1. how might people living under curfews or new protest restrictions feel similar to the colonists in 1774? 5. do you think governments are ever justified in limiting freedoms after protests or crises? why or why not? 6. which of the modern examples do you think is the closest comparison to the intolerable acts? explain your choice.

Explanation:

1. In 1774, the colonists felt their rights were violated by British - imposed laws. Similarly, people under curfews or protest restrictions may feel their freedoms of movement and expression are curtailed, leading to feelings of resentment, power - lessness, and a sense of being oppressed.
2. Some may argue that governments are justified in limiting freedoms during crises or after protests to maintain public safety, prevent violence, and protect the well - being of the majority. Others may say it is never justified as it undermines fundamental human rights. It depends on the balance between security and individual liberties.
3. The Intolerable Acts were punitive measures by the British against the colonists. Modern examples like emergency - powers laws that restrict civil liberties in response to perceived threats could be seen as similar. For example, laws that limit freedom of assembly during times of unrest might be compared as they both involve the government imposing restrictions on the populace.

Answer:

1. They may feel resentful, powerless, and oppressed due to curtailed freedoms.
2. Arguments can be made for both sides. Justification may be seen in maintaining public safety, while opposition may stem from upholding fundamental rights.
3. Emergency - powers laws that restrict civil liberties during unrest as they involve government - imposed restrictions on the people, similar to the Intolerable Acts.