They asked the court to declare Chicago law banning handguns unconstitutional. Chicago’s law does not expressly prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued that it effectively does so. The law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Most handguns are excluded from the list of approvable firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. Both the petitioners were ruled against by the United States District Court Judge and the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the ‘land of the free’.” The quote basically states that freedom of speech is actually being able to burn the American flag without being arrested. Secondly, flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment reads: 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.
One side to this ongoing argument is that all guns in the United States need to be banned. Many Americans feel this way, believing that, “violence is out of control. Guns are a major cause. They should all be banned- the sooner the better.” To be exact nearly three out of four Americans, 73%, believe that guns need to be under a lot more control. The second amendment says “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.” (Bill of Rights).
Stand Your Ground By: Nyerere Davis Baker College of Allen Park Composition I 6PM Summary and Response Essay 10/16/2012 Stand Your Ground Kevin Chappell, in his article featured in a July 2012 issue of Ebony Magazine’s “The Advocate” column, titled “Standing Up Against ‘Stand-Your-Ground’ Laws”, explains why this law is having a negative effect on African-American communities. The stand-your-ground law constitutes that one may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief or fear of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first. The author states that this law should be repealed in the wake of the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, was brutally murdered by George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain. Mr. Chappell insists that the vast majority of civil rights groups think that Blacks “stand to be victims more than beneficiaries of this law”, and that changing the law will be an uphill battle going against gun-rights activists, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). Moreover, with over 2,000 state lawmakers as members of the NRA, the American Legislative Exchange Council, who is primarily responsible for writing the measures of this law in many states, has secured majority votes for these laws.
The OBA attempted to coerce Keefe to change his tactics by distributing flyers in the neighborhood where Keefe resided. Keefe sued, and obtained an injunction preventing the OBA from distributing flyers in Keefe's neighborhood. The OBA argued that their pamphlets were merely informational, but Keefe argued that they were invasions of privacy, and were intimidating. The Illinois Appellate Court upheld the
"Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants….Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.” Frederick Douglas. The fact of the matter is that burning or desecrating the flag is protected by the first amendment, and is backed by two Supreme Court cases.
It is a wide held belief that this symbol is beyond the reaches of civil protest and should be worshipped like a deity. The United States Supreme Court has ruled differently about this and the next three court cases will explain why. The first court case that will be discussed is Street v. New York. In 1968 the Supreme Court heard a case in which the defendant, Sydney Street was so outraged over the attempted murder of a civil rights leader, James Meredith and the lack of police investigation of the crime; he burned an American flag in protest and stated “"Yes; that is my flag; I burned it. If they let that happen to Meredith, we don't need an American flag (Street, 2013).” It was against the law in New York to desecrate or speak against the flag; he was arrested, charged, and convicted.
Justice Day said, "The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain convictions by means of unlawful searches and enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgment of the courts which are charged at all times with the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a right to appeal for the
You bring up examples of freedom of speech but it has nothing to do with social media. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church picketing at dead soldier’s funerals is an obvious example of trying to reject these people their freedom of speech, even though what they are doing is completely wrong. I also think that you think that your audience does not know that much about online privacy as a whole and who controls it. For example, you talk about who is in charge of the privacies and their job, “…search engines are protected by the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes Internet service providers from being held liable for content posted by third parties.” I believe that the point you are trying to get to your audience is to inform them of the privacy issues with these examples and how one day there is a possibility they can be affected from either
On March 19, 2001, Judicial Watch urged the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to reject the plea agreement under which Bill Clinton’s friend James T. Riady and the Lippo Bank escaped with what was for them a slap on the wrist for their serious violations of campaign finance laws and other crimes. The pleading submitted by Judicial Watch is a clear and comprehensive summary of those crimes. It makes a persuasive case that the punishment agreed to by the Reno Justice Department and approved by the Ashcroft Justice Department does not come close to fitting the crimes and should have been set aside. The media coverage of this miscarriage of justice has been confined to reporting the judge’s acceptance of the plea agreement ? a fine of $8.6