In the twenty century, the U.S society was in the period of tending to be a human base society. The laws in America were introduced to create a fair and regulated society for its citizens. The First and Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution granted that the U.S citizens have the freedom of speech. And the New York State had its law of Criminal Anarchy Act since 1902 for “organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means (n.p).” The citizen in the any state of the U.S should always both obey the state law and follow the national constitution. Otherwise, the citizen would get corresponding punishment for jail, community service or even death for most states. However, the case of Gitlow vs New York happened in 1925 that majorly argued about the U.S citizens’ guaranteed freedom of speech in the First Amendment of Constitution and the New York State’s Criminal Anarchy Act.
Gitlow vs. New York is a case that influences the integrity of U.S legislative system importantly. In the 1925s, Benjamin Gitlow, a left wing socialist, published speeches of anti-government to advocate a new better communist government. His action caused the charge as unpopular and dangerous speech for the whole society from the New York state government, and his behavior became a court case. According to the website thefreedictionary.com, that “The opinions expressed in” “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” “formed the bases for the defendant's convictions under Sections 160 and 161 of the penal law of New York, which were the criminal anarchy statutes” (n.p). “The Revolutionary Age” and “The Left Wing Manifesto” ar...
... middle of paper ...
... his action could actually be really harmful for the society. Gitlow defended him as not guilty merely depends on the part of the context of the First Amendment of Constitution about U.S citizens’ freedom of speech. It is actually make a deliberate misinterpretation out of the context. Gitlow’s claims that he is innocent might because of his less awareness and misunderstanding of the laws. Or, he might believe that the faults of the Constitution would help him escape from the punishment. However, in my point of view, Gitlow fail to consider the primarily goal of the U.S Constitution that is to protect the best profit of its majority.
Bibliography http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Gitlow+v.+New+York http://principlesofafreesociety.com/freedom-of-speech/
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_ayn_rand_column
Although a portion of Leuchtenburg’s evidence supporting his opinion on which case constituted a constitutional revolution involved the shift in the Court’s decision-making, the question of the reason for the shift in the Court begs to be explained. At the time, during the case of West Coast v. Parrish, the court seemed to be in sorts fueled by politics. The Justices were concerned with the consequences that could very well up rise from their reluctance to approve the standard legislation. In other words, they may have shifted their votes in hopes of saving the traditional foundation. Justice Roberts’ voting decisions would then need to be closely examined seeing that he supported the liberal side in 1934 concerning the case of Nebbia v. New York, supported the conservative side in 1935-1936 concerning the Rail Pension and Tipaldo, and then returned to suppor...
In this paper we will discuss the different point of views on the revolutionary war period that lead up the creation of the constitution between Howard Zinn and Larry Schweikart. It is true that the constitution as created by the rich, however the rich were more educated than the poor at the time, making them the reliable leaders of the society. This said, the rich might have tweaked the Laws to their slight advantage. Schweikart explains the creation of the constitution in order to fulfil the needs of the population. However Zinn emphasizes the fact that the government is controlled by the elites who benefit the most form the foundation of the constitution.
“NEW YORK TIMES v. UNITED STATES.” The Oyez Project. llT Chicago-Kent College Of Law, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials.
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
1. Was Terminiello's right to free speech, which is protected under the Federal Constitution, violated, as applied in this case?
The evolution of power gained by the Federal government can be seen in the McCuloch versus Maryland (1819) case. This case des...
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson pg 9 cjt To convict an individual because proper consideration was not taken will stir up social unrest rather than it’s initial intent, when he or she who has committed the crime is not punished for their doings can cause for a repetition and even collaboration with other’s for a similar or greater crime. Is public order important? Public order is not only important but is an absolute necessity for the Individuals within the society to know that all efforts are being made to ensure the safety of our citizens in order for the very structure of our nation to stand erect. Without order, we are prone to experience oppression by our neighboring nations and leaving our state of independence to depend upon the governance of another, broadcasting this nation as not only unqualified but also unable to even protect ourselves from foreign threats....
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” George Schuyler was a journalist who didn’t fear writing about controversy; he was a man who embraced it. Schuyler was known to give a fresh and sincere view on topics during a time when freedom of speech was most vulnerable. Although many embraced his conservative outlook on topics, his peers often scrutinized him for this very same trait. On March 18 1944, Schuyler wrote an article in the Pittsburgh Courier condemning the government for pressing charges on Lawrence Dennis and others for violating the Smith Act of 1940. This page long editorial helped arouse a nationwide debate as to whether or not the government was acting within its rights when indicting individuals who expressed their ideas and opinions about Communism and/or Fascism. Articles from the New York Times, the Washington Post, and a plethora of renowned journals continued this debate for decades to come.
The writers of the key Revolution document "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens" stated unequivocally in Article V that "The law ought to prohibit only actions harmful to society" 1 , and in Article VI that "It should be the same to all, whether it protects or punishes" 2
Assuming he spends a couple years in a jail cell and placed on the “no fly list” would be an appropriate disciplinary action. Although, he was doing for the greater good of people, it still does not give him the right to take away the feeling of security from everyone else. It cannot be stressed enough, that he endangered the lives of many innocent lives by committing this crime. When living in any country, there are always certain laws that must be followed fully, in saying whether they are morally right or wrong. Even though, many people will not agree with certain policies that each government enforces, you still have to abide by your government’s laws. Eventually, the banned items were also safely found a board in the restrooms of the tainted planes in the southern areas like; New Orleans, Louisiana, and Houston, Texas. Unfortunately, there may not be a variety of bright ways to draw attention to your beliefs, and expressing your problem to the public. The reason why Heatwole is connected to Thoreau, is to bring out the point that they both wanted to share their own beliefs with the world. They both want a better, safer place for our future generations to live in. Nevertheless, what Heatwole did was wrong. Furthermore, in following he’s footsteps, by threatening the lives of countless people and his own, and smuggling concealed items that the TSA have
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library -. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
In his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” often times dubbed, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) argues against abiding to one’s State, in protest to the unjust laws within its government. Among many things, Thoreau was an American author, poet, and philosopher. He was a firm believer in the idea of civil disobedience, the act of refusing to obey certain laws of a government that are felt to be unjust. He opposed the laws regarding slavery, and did not support the Mexican-American war, believing it to be a tactic by the Southerners to spread slavery to the Southwest. To show his lack of support for the American government, he refused to pay his taxes. After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest. From these three men, we can learn the significance of detaching ourselves from the social norm; and instead, fight for our values in a non-violent way, in order to make a change in our government’s corrupt and unjust laws.