More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments about freedom of speech
Four constitutional limitations to the right to freedom of expression
Arguments about freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Clear and Danger was evaluated in the First Amendment and guarantees the right of Freedom of Speech. I have two scenarios regarding clear and danger, the first scenario is Debs v United States. In this case Debs v United States, Debs felt that socialism is the answer; however, Deb’s was prosecuted for the remarks that he made. In addition, the speech that Deb gave wasn’t as harsh as made by others, for example, George McGovern made a remark about the Viet Nam War during his 1972 presidential bid which was very harsh. This process was done by using its weak form of the clear-and-present-danger test and Deb’s ended up being sentenced to a ten year sentence. In this case Deb’s couldn’t speak everything on his mind that he wanted which was a violation
Nick Salvatore’s book Eugene V. Debs Citizen and Socialist provides a very detailed account of the life and times and Eugene Debs. Debs was born in Terre Haute Indiana and Salvatore emphasizes the important role that this played in Debs upbringing. Terre Haute was ripe with religious fundamentalism from its founding. Religion permeated everyday life throughout Terre Haute. Salvatore writes that, “In newspaper editorials, political speeches, civic dedications and Sunday sermons they assured the kingdom of God had already arrived and that their town was destined to become the center of the Kingdoms Midwest development.” It is striking how the ideals of the Terre Haute community based in religious fundamentalism and a strong industrial economy provided a seemingly Marxist critique of a capitalist system in the 1860’s well before Marxist ideas had widely spread to America. Terre Haute’s social construct was unique in that there was the undeniable American value of individual achievement stressed but here the role of community was necessary to achieve this. In Terre Haute it was believed that for individual prosperity the progress of the community as a whole was necessary. Salvatore explains this best himself writing, “The individual was firmly wedded to his community by both the bonds of daily life and by the expectations of future success. The ideas of individualism, self-interest and community appeared to meld.” This seemingly socialist ideology that man relies on himself and his brethren for progress and success was critical to Debs’ formation of his values and ideologies. Even the Superintendent of Terre Haute schools offered this, “If we shall limit the education of the masses and trust the education of the few for directive power and skill we must expect to be ruled by monopolies, demagogues and partisans” Throughout his life Debs constantly fell back on his Terre Hautian upbringing to reinforce his political values which separated him from the Milwaukee and northeastern socialists
The capstone case, United States v. Thomas, was about a undercover DEA officer, Agent Howard, who was killed during a cocaine "buy-bust" that took place in a parking lot in Syracuse.
The duties of a police officer are to ensure that there is maintenance of public peace and order. In order to perform their duties and obligations they require certain powers, authority in order to perform their duties and this extends the power to arrest. This paper focuses on the decision of the court in DPP v Carr, the amendments on Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (LEPRA) section 99 and a critical evaluation of statements made by Sentas and Cowdery.
Nearly every aspect of law enforcement has a court decision that governs criteria. Most court rulings are the result of civil lawsuit towards a police officer and agency. However, currently, there is no law that mandates law enforcement driver training. When it comes to firearms, negligence by officers has resulted in a multitude of court rulings. Popow v. City of Margate, 1979, is a particularly interesting case that outlines failed firearms training by an agency. In this case, an officer chasing a suspect during a foot pursuit fired at the suspect, striking and killing an innocent bystander (Justia.com, 2017). The court ruled that the agency was “grossly negligent” of “failure to train” (Justia.com, 2017). As a result, nearly every agency requires annual firearms training and has written policy concerning the same. Officers must show proficiency in firearms use every year to maintain their certification. Many states even impose fines on officers for
"Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself." The basic rights guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights is what holds the United States together. When Salman Rushdie wrote Guardian, he knew this. Unfortunately, the majority of congress and the President himself have forgotten the basic rights of Americans. When President William J. Clinton signed the Communications Decency Act that was proposed but the 104th Congress, he severely limited the rights of Americans on the Internet. The internet, just like books, magazines, artwork, and newspapers, should not be censored.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
Look around you America. Your world is changing. Suddenly it’s no longer safe to fly in airplanes, attend sporting events, or just open your junk mail. Almost daily, news of threats and security breach’s litter the airwaves, leaving many asking the same question. “How can we make our country safe again?” Unfortunately, there isn’t a simple answer. America is united in the cause, but divided over the methods of preventing terrorism. At this time of uncertainty, many are urging Americans to “give up” some of their freedoms and privacy in exchange for safety. Regrettably, this wave of patriotism has spilled over, and is beginning to infringe on our fundamental liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Since the September 11th terrorist attacks those who have made comments contrary to popular beliefs have prompted much debate about free speech. When America experiences some great trauma, our freedom of speech often faces its own trauma.
In the late 1900’s the clear and present danger clause was added to the constitution which added small print to the first amendment. The clause was added to stop people from opposing the draft and United States war efforts when entering world war one. The clause states that if speech or writing poses a clear and present danger to others than it is not permitted under the first amendment. Under the same principal, you can’t scream “fire” in a crowded theater without consequences.
There was an article saying that in 2007, the government subpoenaed amazon.com to obtain book purchasing records of amazons customers. Judge Stephen Crocker said that, “ the subpoena is troubling because it permits the government to peek into the reading habits of specific individuals with out their knowledge or permission. It is an unsettling and un-American scenario to envision federal agents nosing through the reading lists of law-abiding citizens while hunting for evidence against somebody else.” This article brings into question the constitutional rights of the 4th and 9th amendments, of warrants and privacy of citizens: should the government be able to look into private records showing purchases and other private businesses of citizens without a warrant?
Holmes considered the context of Schenck's speech as well as its intent. In his opinion, he created a new legal test: the clear and present danger test; that was designed to identify when certain forms of speech were not protected by the First Amendment.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
Glassroth v. Moore, Maddox v. Moore United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2003 335 F.3d 1282 Facts Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy S. Moore placed a 5280-pound ton granite monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. Procedure A group of lawyers consisting of Stephen R. Glassroth, Melinda Maddox and Beverly Howard filed two separate civil suits (Glassroth v. Moore and Maddox v. Moore) in Federal Court against Justice Moore in his official capacity as Chief Justice and in his official capacity as Administrative Head of the Alabama Judicial System, respectively, to have the monument removed. The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Alabama, Northern Division ordered the monument removed because it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The injunction was stayed pending appeal. Issue: Did Chief Justice Moore’s placement of a 5280-pound monument displaying the Ten Commandments in the center of the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
A Burmese comedian by the name of Zarganar was sentenced to 35 years for violating the Electronics Acts in 2008. Afterwards, Zarganar received an additional 14 years for supporting destructive acts against the state. Even though he was arrested and sentenced for violating the Electronics Acts and Video Acts, his only real crime was openly criticizing the Burmese government's handling of a past incident (Farrington 66). The Burmese government and others like it are the types of governments our nation's founders separated from and protested against. America has recently began to resemble these governments, in the way it restricts people's freedom of expression. America has slowly strayed away from our forefathers' original ideas of freedom of speech. In order to truly be the land of the free, Americans must learn to tolerate the views of others instead of limiting them.
United States that the First Amendment did not protect the publishing and distributing of nonconforming pamphlets during wartime, but Holmes dissented, elaborating more on his standard. Under the Sedition Act, lower courts convicted Abrams for publishing pamphlets criticizing the war (Abrams v. United States 1). While the Court affirmed the conviction, citing Holmes’ clear and present danger test, Holmes cautioned in his dissent that the test should not be so widely applied. He argued that Congress could legitimately limit speech, especially during times of war, but the government could not “forbid all effort to change the mind of the country” (Abrams 9). This means every piece of political criticism does not create a clear and present danger. He
Humans are born free, and they are unique by having minds. Accordingly, every day, they gain new knowledge, and day by day they become smarter. They become more thinker, become more understanding things. Therefore, they have the right to speech without any restrictions. “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear,” Orwell. There are various methods that the humans used in the past to express their thoughts. They used primitive lines, and inscriptions on the walls of caves, drawing, animals, tools and sophistication, to syllables and letters in the formation of languages. Freedom of speech means the way that people express their ideas, thoughts by writing or speaking, or even