However, what many people do not necessarily know is that there are limits to our free speech and the supreme court has spoken on this topic for cases stating what would have to happen for these rights to be voided, “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action [emphasis added]” (WTP 123). Most of our rights have limits to them as it is for our protection and and the supreme court has a set of ways to be able to decide when our speech is no longer…
The first amendment of the Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” Although expressed in absolute terms, this constitutional guarantee has never been interpreted as creating an absolute shield for every religiously motivated act. This does not mean all conduct bases on religious beliefs is free of governmental control; such behavior: “remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” Prohibition of activities alleged to be based on religious tenets has been long considered constitutional if such conduct jeopardizes the public health, safety, or morals, or presents a danger to third persons.…
Case: The case was New York Times Co v. United States at was decided on June 30, 1971.…
The First Amendment is all about your rights and how these are used in the world today. The "clear and present danger" test is a basic principle for deciding the limits of free speech. It was set by the famous Schenck v. the United States case from World War I. Anti War activist Charles Schenck was arrested for sending leaflets to prospective army draftees encouraging them to ignore their draft notices. The United States claimed that Schenck threatened national security, and the justices agreed. The principle was established that free speech would not be protected if an individual were a "clear and present danger" to United States security.…
This article talked about how the students of UC Berkeley were protesting against a speech being given at their school, and how the sponsors of this group were forced to pay $15,000 in security fees. Then on top of that fee the school paid an additional $600,000 to create cemented barriers and have armed forces on campus during the meeting. Personally I feel these precautions were unnecessary however due to the way students were reacting it had to be done. Another subject brought up in the article was the fact that 44 percent of students said that the First Amendment does not protect "hate speech", 51 percent said that they would be in favor of students speaking out against a speaker "known for making offensive and hurtful statements" and 19 percent of students said the use of violence against controversial speakers is acceptable. This information frustrates me because freedom of speech is black and white, personal opinions shouldn’t interfere with our rights.…
Cornell, Saul. "It Is Unproven That the Founding Fathers Intended to Protect the Individual 's Right to Bear Arms." Is Gun Ownership a Right? Ed. Kelly Doyle. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt. from "The Second Amendment Under Fire: The Uses of History and the Politics of Gun Control." http://historymatters.gmu.edu. 2001. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Feb. 2014.…
Presidents Obama’s commonsense immigration reform proposal has four parts. The subject in which caught most of my attention was the way immigrants can earn their citizenship. This proposal provides undocumented immigrants a legal way to earn citizenship. This would allow those hidden in shadows to come out and pay taxes and play by the rules like everyone else. Those living illegally in the U.S. would be responsible for their actions be passing national security and criminal background check, paying taxes and a penalty, also to learn English before earning their citizenship. Which I hope I can be eligible in a couple of years. There is no uncertainty about their ability to become U.S. citizens if criteria met. The proposal will also stop innocent…
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therefore, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Being the first amendment to our Constitution, our founding fathers saw the importance of giving the citizens the freedom of speech, but this is not absolute because it has certain limitations. Despite these limitations, it was determined that the first amendment was critical to having a true democracy. The question of what is ethical can be subjective, thus rendering different answers depending on who you ask. This type of volatility can lead to a less stable democracy;…
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (law.cornell.edu). These twenty-seven words are the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Where did this amendment come from? How did the founding fathers of the United States come up with this? This paper will show the foundation of where the Second Amendment came from, how it became an amendment, and what happened after the amendment went into effect.…
America has given many rights and has offered protection to US citizens. Like the second amendment states, “The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” However many riots and shootings have recently broke out in the last couple of years. So therefore the right to bear arms has been taken advantage of and as lead to many malicious events like The Columbine Shootings, Virginia Tech, Aurora Shooting, and New Town Shootings.…
“You weren’t born in a barn.” Scolded the mother. Growing up Mexican, we have to say hello to everybody and I mean everybody. Especially no vulgar language and to always respect yourself and others. In today’s society most of the morals I mentioned are lacking.…
The First Amendment protects the right of citizens to their freedom of speech. There are ways that those freedoms can be taken away. Limitations to this law can be at the work place, when something obscene is said, threats and many others. One way your rights can be limited is when you are convicted as a felon. You often loose many of the rights as a felon, including the right of the second amendment to own a gun. Lester Packingham was convicted as a sexual offender in 2002. He was caught using a Facebook in North Carolina. In North Carolina there is a law to prevent sexual offenders from being on sites like Facebook and other social media sites that minors use. Packingham believes this to be a violation to his First Amendment rights. However, in the case of Packingham there is a government interest to limit his First Amendment right.…
One of the most highly debated amendments of the United States Constitution is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment has been disputed for hundreds of years on exactly of its exact true meaning. The United States Constitution wrote the Second Amendment as “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."…
The Second Amendment and the right to bear arms has always been a part of American culture and history, the right to bear arms is as American as apple pie and westerns, but it has and always will be a hot topic and the wording and meaning of the Second Amendment comes into question frequently. The currently accepted meaning of the Second Amendment is that it gives militias and individuals the right to bear arms, the right to own firearms (“Second Amendment to the United States Constitution”). However even though the right to bear arms is given to every American it can be revoked, many states have sensible laws that restrict where you can take a firearm and who can own them, and many Americans support these restrictions even though they technically…
The sun is bright and the air is cold. In the background you can see the walls of the rigid, stone courthouse. There is no foot traffic around the courthouse which lends to the beginning or the end of the day. In front of the courthouse is a peaceful group invoking their First Amendment right to peaceful assembly. The clothes identify those gathered as everyday people. Most are dressed in long pants, jackets and sweaters. These are not people with money, yet one holds a purse firmly at her side. On the ground bottles are scattered purposely. The bottles are different sizes and colors. All of the bottles share something in common, they are prescriptions, some empty, while others appear to have pills in them. The shadows of the protesters shade…