Analysis of the facts involved in this case clearly shows that the passage of this ordinance is indeed unconstitutional. This directly in defiance of the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution.…
HOLDING: Yes, (6-3). The CPPA is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment, the right to free speech.…
The Supreme Court held that the plan was a race classification and presumed to be unconstitutional unless it was "narrowly tailored" to meet a "compelling government interest."…
My view on this particular case sides with Plessy rather than Ferguson. I believe in total equality and the idea of no difference between fellow human beings. There should be no distinction made between that which is for the white man, and that which is for the black man. Public institutions should be used by everyone together, and the act of riding a train car should not be a racial matter. I also agree that this segregation was a violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment in that it didn't promote the idea of equality among the races that…
Perspective: The implications of this court ruling states that the Congress has limit authority to violate the rights of individuals even when it comes to investigations regarding the welfare of the country. The court ended up ruling a year later, on similar case, Barenblatt v. United States. On this particular case the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had not violated any rights and thus upheld Barenblatt’s original conviction. The difference between this case, although Barenblatt was not a Communist Activist, he was promoting and discussing theories and studying…
(2) Whether the denial of the permit was a violation of the free speech and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…
n/a. (2007, June 25). Aclu slams supreme court decision in student free speech case . Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-slams-supreme-court-decision-student-free-speech-case…
In my ruling, the illegal glorification of the drug culture “Bong hits for Jesus”. I feel the school had made a bad judgment call about having the banner. I feel it is not an attack on the saying “Bong hits for Jesus”. I feel that this is an attack on the student’s first amendment rights, just because the sign had something to do with marijuana. The school has an anti- drug program. I believe a non- disruptive pin, shirt, banner, etc. should not be taking from a student, for the shear fact that they oppose the anti-drug programs that the school offers. It is an attack on their first amendments rights. It was a 15-foot joke. The school dose has the right to not tolerate an interruption of a school sponsored anti-drug event. But this was not this kind of an event and the banner was not placed on school grounds. The banner was placed across the street from the school in a public open forum. One cannot be punished for holding of a banner not on school property. I feel that the principal was wrong to hastily take the banner down in the heat of the moment, but feel she should not pay punitive damages, for the banner was not worth much. Though the pride of the student’s who put the banner up was hurt a little I feel they should not be punished for expressing their first amendment rights, which they demonstrated non-violently, very conformed manner, and not on school property.…
As Walker put it “The American Civil Liberties Union was a unique organization….In contrast, the American Civil Liberties Union adopted the policy of impartially defending civil liberties, including the principle of free speech, without reference to the content of that speech” This comes at a time when “the Supreme Court had soundly rejected all First Amendment claims.” (47)…
This case was a major turning point to student rights. It all started when Morse a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with this message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," this was meant to the marijuana smoking. When the Principal Deborah Morse saw the banner she took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified or tried to give a good reason for her actions by stating the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs. Frederick sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the federal civil rights statute, alleging a violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The District Court they went to found no constitutional violation and ruled in favor of Morse. The court held that even if there were a violation, the principal had qualified immunity from lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Ninth Circuit cited Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which extended First Amendment protection to student speech except where the speech would cause a disturbance. Because Frederick was punished for his message rather than for any disturbance, the Circuit Court ruled, the punishment was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the principal had no qualified punishment, because any reasonable principal would have known that Morse's actions were unlawful.…
The basis of this court case was to determine whether or not wearing armbands in an educational setting is protected under Freedom of Speech. Justice Abe Fortas was against the prohibiting of armbands in school because it was protected by the First Amendment. However, Justice Hugo Black was for the prohibiting of armbands because he did not believe that people could express their opinions or beliefs anywhere or any time.…
Though there may be casualties along the way (such as a great deal on parking in downtown Chicago), ultimately people in America have been guaranteed the right to peacefully assemble to protest that with which they disagree. If the founding fathers had not believed that the ability to peacefully resist is vital to the functioning of a society, they would not have included it in the very first change to the Constitution. If somewhere along the line the judges of the Supreme Court had decided that no, we no longer need this right, or that this right is hurting society, they would have changed the Constitution to reflect that. No, we as Americans are guaranteed these basic rights for a reason. We are living in a free society, and a free society's best tool for expressing its opinion of laws is to peacefully resist…
The Bill of Rights was specifically established to protect citizens from the government and its power. Our founding fathers based the Constitution off of freedom, and we shouldn’t be able to make adjustments to it because of how society views specific forms of communication. How would we even be able to justify what hate speech is in the eye of the law? Laws are created with the…
This is one of the standard arguments that is made, often quite sincerely, against the activities of people like supporters of the Congress of Racial Equality, who set about changing laws they find objectionable by dramatically breaking them. Such groups are often condemned for risking disorder and for spreading disrespect for the law when, so it is maintained, they could accomplish their goals a great deal more fairly and patriotically by staying within the law, and confining themselves to the courts and to methods of peaceful…
Several people take Snyder’s side in the case, : A statement from the Committee for Freedom of the Gregg Leslie Press stated "Most speech will offend somebody and we just need to be able to protect that. We can't have rules that make speech illegal or subject to incredible penalties just because it offends…