Terrorists are considered military thr4eats to the security of the United States and would therefore be fair targets. Unfortunately, the word “terrorist” is not clearly defined. But how does the rest of the worldview America’s ban on assassinations? Some see it as finally upholding the Geneva Convention, which it has helped ratify and endorsed in 1947 (SOURCE). Others are skeptical or outright don’t believe America would uphold the Order and finally it is viewed by some as an attempt to regain some integrity after the Watergate scandal and failed assassination attempts of previous administrations.
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
One of the flaws that the opposition notices is that in way shield laws afford extra privileges to journalists and that no citizen should be able to ignore a court ordered subpoena. Simply put, journalist would be placed above the law. Justice Department Official John Ashcroft stated that “reporters today are driven by their editors to deliver tersely written “scoops” usually whispered to them by individuals with political or self-serving agendas who refuse to be identified” and that they “should ultimately be held accountable for acting recklessly and irresponsibly. Allowing journalist this privilege would only further allow them you be able to utilize non-credible sources. Opponents also cite problems with defining who is considered a journalist or news gatherer and who is not.
Legal Opinion: Schenck v. the United States March 11, 2014 Question Presented: Is Charles Schenck found guilty of violating the Espionage Act; or does Schenk’s freedom of speech given to him by the First Amendment triumph over the Espionage Act? Short Opinion Statement: No, Charles Schenck should not be found found guilty of violating the Espionage Act. Schenck is only exercising his right to freedom of speech, and has full protection from the First Amendment of the Constitution. Evidence along with case precedents show that Schenck is innocent. Facts: The tweet seen around the world.
Imacula L Suraredjo April 28, 2011 Forensic Psychology Dr. Abercrombie Chapter 4 (Nonviolent Crimes) 1. What is the common law definition of larceny? Larceny- is defined as the trespassory taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another with the intent of depriving the other person of the property permanently or for an unreasonable period of time. 2. What is the difference between title, custody, and possession?
The Patriot Act was ultimately supposed to protect Americans from terrorism by giving the government more power. According to the ACLU, the Act contained many flaws. It gave law enforcement freedom to search homes with only suspicions of terrorism, with no warrant involved. Not only did the government not have a warrant but gave no warning either before nor after the searches. It also gave the government the right to medical and tax records as well as the books bought and borrowed by Americans.
Some people would argue that some ideas or images are simply too dangerous or radical to be displayed to the public. How can this be a sound argument, when the same people enjoy and actively reference their freedom of speech? Think about if influential books, articles, or movies were never published simply because they were too “indecent” or, dare I say it, too “thought-provoking”. Since when did people start sacrificing knowledge and intelligence for safety? It’s apparent that at least some people tend to disagree with censorship, recently being the Supreme Court.
When it comes to the Alton Logan case there is an automatic red flag thrown up on the attorneys decision to remain silent and a lot of critical comments are being thrown toward the attorneys because most of us find this silence by the attorneys to be unacceptable and very unmoral. When we start to read the details of this case we could easily begin saying that the two lawyers who represented Andrew Wislon should have spoke up and that saving an innocent man was more important than the attorney-client privilege law but then again it is easy to argue that the lawyers did the right thing by not breaking the attorney- client privilege law and if you’re willing to keep an open mind and try and see where these two lawyers are coming from in this moral decision they made, you might be swayed a different direction or at least understand the attorneys decision a little
The United States Judicial System and Racial Profiling ENG 122 Lisa M. Carlo May 27, 2013 The United States Judicial System and Racial Profiling There is reluctance in American society to talk about race and crime because race is a touchy subject. Everything in today's society has to be politically correct. One has to be very careful what they write or say because of the fear of what might happen if someone misunderstood what the real meaning to their statement was. For that reason, when a person talks about race and crime many individuals may interpret their opinions differently. Therefore, many people try to avoid talking about such controversial subjects.
Federal v. State Government To this day the relationship between federal and state governments in respect to the constitution still effect the everyday person. Many people feel that it is unfair that a state government can null and void a federal law. But on the reverse side, people feel that it is unfair that the federal government can make a law legal without knowing the feelings and ideas of the people. Throughout history, there have been events that test the limits of federal and state governments. A recent event that proves federal and state governments are separate is the topic of gay marriage.