After reading Phillip Jenkins’ article from Nerve.com, I am appalled that there are sick people in this world who actually enjoy “kiddie porn.” I have heard some horrible stories, but nothing quite like what Jenkins has mentioned in his article. Jenkins states, “if sexual fantasies, however grotesque, however unhealthy, can be made illegal, none of us are safe.” Jenkins cites specific examples such as videos of “kindergarten girls masturbating and giving blowjobs to adult men” along with many other examples to help support his thesis.…
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.…
The constitutional convention is trying to decide on a plan to use, the Federalists or Anti Federalists. The Federalists wanted a strong central form of government. The Anti Federalists wanted less power to the national government and more power to the states. Even though the rights of the people may have been secured in the constitution, the Anti Federalists had the best plan because the Federalists gave the national government too much power and the constitution had no clearly stated bill of rights. The Anti Federalist plan included having a bill of rights that would clearly state and secure the rights of the people.…
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.…
Justin Cronin the writer of “Confessions of a Liberal Gun Owner” states that you should be able to own guns. You should be able to exercise your rights and express your beliefs on gun ownership. All should be done with the right precautions and safety. The effectiveness of this essay makes it a convincing, because he states his arguments and he also states possible counter arguments.…
Finally, the last exception to the freedom of expression, involving what one says and publishes is obscenity. Obscenity is “acts or statements that are extremely offensive under current societal standards” (pages 124-125). According to the textbook, the Supreme Court, in 1973, established the Miller test, which helped decide whether or not something was truly obscene (page 125). With the creation of this test, it made it possible, even though it is sometimes tricky, to decide whether or not something is obscene and not protected by the freedom of…
The First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press.” The freedom of speech, press, and religion have been pillars of the United States and other Democratic nations who knew the need to have these rights guaranteed. This idea was a major element of the Enlightenment period, the thoughts of John Locke, Jean Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Voltaire would be incorporated into the Constitution which included Freedom of Speech as a Human Right. Schenck v United States rules that the First Amendment stands for all speech as long as it doesn’t cause a “Clear and Present Danger.” No laws have been placed to decrease opinion.…
The First Amendment guarantees five freedoms that are seen to be the minimum necessary for a democracy. The first Amendment protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. Those five freedoms are freedom of speech, press, Religion, assembly and petition. Freedom of speech is the most basic right. Freedom of Speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constrain from the Government.…
The first amendment of the US Constitution has come into a lot of political controversy because it gives us some of the very essential rights to be whom we want to be. Under the first amendment we as United States citizens have the right to “freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, which some people don’t want us to have these rights and will try to come up with laws to restrain us from using them so it can benefit their cause (Ivers, 2013). I feel that the government wants to have the power to keep us in control and be able to do what they want, when they want with us.…
The Second Amendment has been one of the most controversial topics that America faces today. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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" (LII). Under the constitution, you are able to own guns but there has been many restrictions and Acts that control your rights to a minimum. Gun rights reforms are how the Acts and certain limitations are made. These reforms are made to help lower the dangers of these weapons and allow for higher protection. The Second Amendment and Gun Rights should be adapted to today’s society along with certain past events to allow citizens to bear arms publicly. In multiple scenarios, these past event may have been avoided if gun control was open to more eligible citizens.…
There has always been a debate about weather the 1st amendment is more important Than the 2nd amendment. In this article I will be talking about why I think the 2nd amendment is more important than the 1st, the reason I believe the 2nd amendment is more important is that it allows us to bear arms, this means we are allowed to own weapons such as guns, knives, brass knuckles, etc... Also even if the 1st amendment didn’t exist we would still have the rights to own a gun or other lethal weapons in use of protection, so in other words even through the 1st amendment…
“ I put forth a list of judges who will protect and defend all of our freedoms, including the Second Amendment.” - Donald. J Trump.( Constitution and second amendment) Donald Trump believes very strong in the second amendment. He wants to put four supreme court officials who are all against gun control. He also wants citizens to be able to carry their gun everywhere. He wants a new mental health program. Donald Trump believes that he should keep most of the gon laws like no buy/ no fly list.…
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."…
Anti-pornography feminists will look at porn and see violence and humiliation to a woman and her reputation; but what they do not see is that they are causing negative effects for women by being an anti-pornography feminist. From Jacoby’s, “First Amendment Junkie”, Brownmiller’s ‘Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet”, Carolyn Bronstein’s book “Battling Pornography” and Lynn Walter’s “Women’s Right’s’, the arguments are clear. The evidence proves that Susan Jacoby has a more legitimate argument in saying that anti-porn feminists are looking to the government for a censorship on porn compared to Susan Brownmiller who says that porn is not a freedom of speech and is in fact harmful to women; which is incorrect. The fact is, pornography is…