They also state that the government cannot stop flag burning as a form of protest if it does not destroy public and/or the property of others. Another argument involved with this case was,” Should flag burning as symbolic speech be prohibited as an exceptio... ... middle of paper ... ...ar issue came about in the case the United States versus Eichman. In 1989 (as a result to Johnson’s case) the United States passed the Flag Protection Act. This act made it a crime to burn the American flag unless it was properly disposed of due to damage. The Supreme Court ruled this case exactly the same because it resulted in the same issue that freedom of speech cannot be allowed based on the circumstance but should exist in all viewpoints from every aspect.
There are two sides to the debate: one being that the flag should be protected by law, and one being that it should not because it restricts free speech. There have been times when Congress has tried to pass laws protecting the flag, but Supreme Court as struck those laws down by deeming them as “violating the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and hence unconstitutional” (Wall, 1995). However, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling of the laws being unconstitutional, there are many advocates that are still trying to pass flag protection laws by amending the Constitution to allow it. This cannot be done. The constitution should not be amended to protect the flag because it would be a violation to our first amendment: our right to free speech.
The ‘exclusionary rule’ was created to put under limitations the Federal officials and United States courts as they exercise their powers and authority. Additionally, it is in place to see that people maintain their own privacy and rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendments. It also allows people to secure their premises, person, papers and other effects from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures under the pretense of law. The United States constitution does not allow or tolerate police searches and seizures without warrants and therefore illegal searches and seizure unless there is a good reason for it. This article will argue that the provision for ‘exclusionary rule’ has deterred the police from harassing innocent citizens particularly the minorities groups and defendants too with illegal and unwarranted searches and seizures.
Without the right to express one’s political views like this America would be no different than other countries who oppress their citizens, forbidding them to speak against the government. For this reason it is critical that acts such as flag desecration is allowed under the constitution.
Desecration of the Flag Should be Prohibited Is it necessary to allow all forms of protest to protect the right of citizens to express grievances against their government? It is not a violation of free speech to outlaw burning of the flag because it is not speech. It will not lead to the limiting of other avenues of protest, of which many are more expressive of specific problems. All attempts to protect the flag short of a Constitutional amendment have failed in the end. A change to the constitution to prohibit the desecration of the U.S. flag is a necessary step to protect one of our most sacred national symbols.
Article 29 of the Basic Statue of the State addresses the issue of opinion and expression. It is declared that the Law protects the freedom of opinion and expression, whether through speech, writing, or other means of expression. Despite the protection of speech under Article 29, the law prohibits many opinions to be spoken, such as the criticism of the sultan. The law states that any materials that cause public discord or abuses a person’s dignity or is harmful to a person’s safety is considered illegal. However, the courts in Oman take this law to mean that insulting a public official is illegal.
This Court should adopt a per se bar standard that the government may not authorize an investigatory stop for a completed misdemeanor. Mr. Dansby’s constitutional rights were violated when the officer conducted an invest... ... middle of paper ... ...t necessary, as it does not serve the purpose of the probable cause warrant standard established under the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 1655. By prohibiting investigatory searches and seizures for a completed, nonviolent misdemeanor, this Court will be able to deter the police misconduct.
Today’s censorship occurs when certain people succeed in imposing their personal or moral values on others. Censorship deals mainly with the first amendment constitutional. “The law requires that if a book is to be removed, an inquiry must be made as to the motivation and intention of the party calling for its removal. If the party’s intention is to deny students access to ideas with which the party disagrees, it is a violation of the First Amendment” [First Amendment Center]. Though the First Amendment bars government authorities from prohibiting the free exercise, abridging the freedom of speech or practicing religious censorship in the United States, individuals have successfully pushed to remove books from public and ... ... middle of paper ... ...hat some readers might find offensive.
The First Amendment does not protect the state or quality of being indecent, immoral, and vulgar. Being obscene is strongly offending the morality or personal rights others have as members of society. "Federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive viewers into viewing harmful or obscene material Miller vs. California"(Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Obscenity). While it is true that the morality of another person should not be violated there should be an acceptation or group of words that should be permitted to be offensive. This word should be known to everyone and accepted as fighting.
The Sedition Act did not want Americans to do any false writing against the federal government. The first Amendments clarifies that congress has no right to make a law that will be established on religion or abridging the freedom