He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
Is Congress a watchdog or lapdog? Personally, I believe that Congress is a watchdog, whether it is a united or a divided government. However, many people may disagree with this because they may believe that whether or not the Congress is a watchdog or lapdog depends on the government being divided or united. The reason for this is: if it is a united government, Congress will not want to embarrass the President by constantly putting him into account. However, this is not true because the Congress is both an independent and co-equal branch of Government.
According to cnn.com, during the court hearing over Cher and Nicole Ritchie's comments against the FCC, Carter Phillips, a Washington attorney for Fox, repeatedly quoted the disputed language in open court. "Phillips told the three-judge panel that the FCC had approved the use of those precise words in a broadcast of the film "Saving Private Ryan," a distinction that left broadcasters in the unfair position of guessing when the words were appropriate and when they were not. In an unusual move for a federal court, the judges allowed C-Span cameras to broadcast the hearing, which led Judge Peter W. Hall to ask Eric D. Miller, the lawyer for the government, whether a news broadcast on the case would draw FCC scrutiny. Miller said no, because a news broadcast would not be intended "to pander or titillate." " The FCC itself admits on the Q and A section of its website that they do not have a concrete definition when it comes to profanity, " Q:Are there certain words that are always unlawful?
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
The issue on the sale of firearms is a highly disputed one. There are those that believe weapons should be completely banned, undoubtedly resulting in a decrease in crime and murder. However, to those who love to hunt and shoot skeet, this would be extremely unfair. Many people rely on guns as self-defense, never causing unjust harm. It is a debate that has no right answer, and two justifiable sides.
This being the immediate cause of the treaty's failure shows that Wilson truly was to bullheaded to compromise and talk things out. Historian Bailey said that after Wilson decided that he wanted deadlock because he thought it would arouse public opinion, there was a tidal wave of public opinion and was given a second chance. However, his stiff-necked personality caused him to throw that opportunity away. “first by spurning compromise, and then by spurning the Lodge reservations.” Wilson just throws away opportunities to make both sides happy and cares for nothing more than himself. It was not the strength of the opposing forces, both liberal and conservative, but rather the stubbornness of Wilson that led to the defeat in the Treaty of Versailles.
Many members of congress believed that individuals should have these rights regardless of having it formally written and didn’t want to create a Bill of Rights. In fact, some believed that implementing personal rights might actually take away rights (UMKC, 2012). These people were called federalists. James Madison had a different agenda though. The anti-federalists sought after a proposal that focused on passing laws, which protected the people as well as the government.
But, is pornography really that harmful? There are many reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the first amendment. Nadine Strossen of the ACLU had a good point when she said "the First Amendment contains no exception for sexual speech.
Though there still exists many restrictions on what one can depict on TV and in movies, many citizens argue that we need more regulations on what can and can not be seen in the theater or one's living room. However, these loosing of the bonds on television and cinema is, in actuality, a liberation of creative freedom that artists in America rightly deserve. That is not to say that sex and violence should always be considered creative expression, but in the battle to protect our morals, it is morally wrong to chain down our nation's artists with restrictions that hold back their ability to channel their creative vision and hold the mirror up to society and life. The primary purpose of the visual arts is to reflect, in one medium or another, our history as a society and the nature of our existence as human beings. This is the duty of filmmakers.