[Establish Credibility] Before working on this speech I did not know many of the details and history of flag burning. A. As the Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, flag burning is "no essential part of any exposition of ideas" but rather "the equivalent of an inarticulate grunt or roar that is most likely to be indulged in not to express any particular idea, but to antagonize others." This is from www.landmarkcases.org B. I also feel a personal connection to this issue as an American. IV.
He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur. The grounds for his premises are weak, as he does not provide concrete and reliable information to support his cause. Scott’s basic premise is that laws encourage the violation of smokers’ rights. He begins his argument with, “The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a host of anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding...” With that commencement, Scott proves that he does not understand the concept of discrimination. He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility.
The claim: The 1st Amendment in the US constitution is freedom of speech, and prohibiting a person from burning the American flag is undermining a person’s rights. The grounds: The Us constitution tried to amend the first amendment to prohibit flag burning, and also try to equate flag burning with cross burning. In Vietnamese they don’t questions their citizen rights about protesting about burning the flag. Burning the flag in Vietnamese maybe distasteful, but in some cases it is legitimate expression of free speech. The warrant: Denying Americans their freedom of speech.
Despite these 'similarities' between the two documents, the statements reach separate conclusions as to how the United States should continue to protect liberty. While both statements appear to uphold the Declaration, it is the Sharon Statement, and not the Port Huron Statement, which supports the Founder's intentions for the United States' government. The Port Huron Statement deviates from the original documents and proposes an expansion of the government in order to protect individual freedom; it suggest publicizing private affairs to protect liberty, a paradox it creates even as it names paradoxes in the United States. The Sharon Statement upholds the integrity of the Declaration and the Founders by adhering to the Constitution and not stepping past the bounds of government it lays out in its structure. The Port Huron Statement, if applied to United States policies, would destroy the liberty carefully established by the Founders, laid out in the Constitution, and defended throughout American history.
Richard Elliot and Jonathan O’Mara were convicted separately for violating a Virginia Law saying, “For any person… with the intent of intimidating any person or group… to burn… a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. (oyez.org)” Though they were not in the KKK, they were attempting to get revenge on an African-American man (James Jubilee) by burning the cross on his property for personal reasons. In the United States, it is seen as a threat if the person that the cross burning is being directed at doesn’t comply with the Klan’s wishes, and will more-likely have to endure the Klan’s outrage. At the trial of this case, Black was found guilty after objecting to a jury that under the First Amendment, the cross burning by itself was sufficient evidence from which the required “intent to intimidate” could be inferred. O’Mara and Elliot both were charged with attempted cross burning and conspiracy to commit cross burning.
In this speech he talks about the violence in Longton he says, "I warned all who had been part of it that they were not the friends, but the enemies of freedom. I told them that this strike for the Charter would bring ruin, if those who claimed to be its supports broke on law". From this source we can see that he believes the violence undermined the Chartist cause. He states that if the people involved in the violence admitted to being Chartists then they would essentially just been seen as a bunch of hooligans which is evidently not the image the Chartists were going for when they needed to be taken seriously amongst a cabinet completely full of middle to upper class Ministers. Thomas Cooper clearly believed that any violence would undermine the cause.
In the United States of America, the people are protected by a group of laws called the Constitution. The very first of these laws is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (US Constitution) This decree states that for no reason may the government restrict the right of free speech to the people. Free speech is sort of like your opinion on matters.
Mill believes customs hinder individual liberty. He thinks customs are not conductive to good moral development, individual creativity, or decision-making skills. Mill clearly states “to conform to custom…does not educate or develop in him any of the qualities…of a distinct…human being” (pg. 60). Words like “distinct” help us understand what Mill is trying to get at.
While others, just an indignantly, pound the payments carrying picket signs protesting it’s an invasion of our rights and goes directly against the freedoms promised us in the constitution. No law should mandate this important decision. We should have the freedom to choose. Who is wrong and who is right? Is there a clear right or wrong choice?
Travis Garrett November 11, 2009 Being an American The civic value that I think that is the most important is our freedom of speech. The United States Constitution includes our freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights as part of the first amendment. Although there is freedom of speech there are some exceptions such as the regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. And things such as property rights for authors and inventors. Hate speech is not protected by freedom of speech.