Freedom of expression is considered to fall under the category of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. Individuals are free to express themselves however they want to, whether or not it is of a religious nature. Even if somebody is not religious, polygamy should be considered to be free speech and protected under the Constitution. Overall, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that polygamy is
1. Was it appropriate for the attorney to examine the document's metadata? Why or why not? No, it was not appropriate. In NYS, the use of technology to obtain information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, would violate the letter and spirit of these Disciplinary Rules.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument it does protect an individual right, it is no more absolute than freedom of speech or any other right in the Constitution. No right is absolute; the government is always allowed to restrict the right if it can satisfy Constitutional strict scrutiny and show the restriction is narrowly tailored to promote a goal of compelling importance. Ironically, the very first federal appellate court in recent history to hold that there was an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, the Fifth Circuit, then went on to nevertheless uphold the particular restriction that was being challenged! Mainly, that the guy was under a restraining order for domestic abuse and he wasn’t allowed to possess a gun. The court said the Second Amendment protects your right, but this regulation doesn’t violate your right.
In a sense, Pitts is showing concern for the future generations, and how they would live their lives. At the rate that technology and social media is affecting us now, how would people be able to physically communicate? Will society be undermined to a status of physical solitude, where one tweets the “exciting” life they are having to others that he or she cannot even recognize the faces of? In the horrifying context (the shooting itself and social media’s part in it) of the shooting of Justin Valdez, Pitts fully demonstrates the unintentional yet detrimental effects of social media on the general public, thus partially refuting a commonly believed idea that social media is designed to allow people to stay well connected to one
In my opinion these school shootings would be more likely to occur in a society that traffics constantly in extremely violent media images, versus a society where such images don't occur at all. I don't know which is worse: two teenage boys gunning down there classmates, or the constant bombardment of the story, by the media. What I think can be done to solve this problem, for one Congress could step up political and legal pressure to more effectively limit and regulate the production and distribution of media violence. The mass media should cover stories like this, but there is no reason for it to be on the front page of every newspaper and magazine in the country. It was tragic, but there are far worse things going on in the world right now.
Guns have always been apart of American History, from the Revolutionary War, up to our most recent war in Iraq. Citizens have used guns for protection, recreation, and hunting. However, people have always tried to find a way to take away people’s rights and keep this nation from bearing arms. Thus, many in this country worry that President Obama will really take away the right to bear arms. Therefore, gun control should not be enforced, because this country has a constitutional right to bear arms and gun control will not stop the violence in this great nation.
Gun Control The subject of gun control is very thought provoking and a very touchy issue, just mentioning the term gun control can strike a fire in many people and in many different ways. Some people look at gun control and see it as the answer to all the crime problems in America, others see it as the beginning of a tyrannical government, some look at the second amendment as just a way to project the sport of target shooting and hunting. The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence as to whether or not gun control is constitutional, prove whether or not guns create crime, and what limitations on owning a gun are constitutional and what is stepping on a person’s right to bear arms. There is no better place to start then the beginning,
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Rule: Yes, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures, and follows a person, not a place. Analysis: In a public place, a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person has no reasonable expectation of privacy for things that they expose to the public, even in his own home, or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment Protection. Conclusion: The evidence obtained and contained on the tapes is inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Also, the Declaration of Independence states that everyone has the right to life, love, and the pursuit of happiness. Killing an innocent child before it even has a chance at life is taking all of those rights away from him. Just because the baby cannot speak for himself yet, doesn’t mean he should not have these constitutional rights and freedoms. It is the law of this country that every American citizen has that freedom and those rights. Yes, everyone in the United States does have that freedom to choose, but killing their child should not even be an option when it means taking away that child’s right to life.
This trial created a national uproar, opening the first of many debates regarding Stand Your Ground Laws, state which that person may use lethal force with no duty to retreat when faced with a “reasonable perceived threat” (US News). Although stand your ground laws provide additional means under the law for people to protect themselves and their families, they should be banned since in reality