in the case of schenck vs united states justice oliver wendell holmes jr wrote: "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." this is an example of what kind of rights?

a. absolute rights
b. natural rights
c. civil rights
d. relative right.......

D.

Right.

In the case of Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. made a statement that "the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." This statement is an example of a limitation on rights, rather than a recognition of a specific kind of right.

The correct answer to your question is not D (relative right), as that term is not commonly used in this context. It is more appropriate to describe the limitation on free speech in this case as a restriction on an individual's rights in order to preserve public safety. However, if we were to choose from the given options:

a. Absolute rights: This is not an example of absolute rights because there are restrictions on the right to free speech in certain situations, such as when it presents a clear and present danger or incites panic.

b. Natural rights: Natural rights are typically thought of as fundamental human rights that are inherent to individuals. While the right to free speech can be considered a natural right, this specific scenario involves a restriction on that right due to the potential harm it could cause.

c. Civil rights: Civil rights are typically associated with the rights of individuals to be protected from discrimination and to have equal treatment under the law. The limitation on free speech in this case does not directly relate to civil rights.

So, considering the available options, none of them accurately describe the rights involved in this case. It is important to note that case law and legal precedents may have more complex implications and interpretations, but this is a basic understanding of the situation.