Amid this hostility against the student-held prayers, the Supreme Court debated whether this practice violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibited the preference by the U.S Government of one religion over another. Furthermore, this clause declared that preferential religious actions held in public domains were unconstitutional. Although this clause prohibited public religious invocations, it did not prohibit religious practices within enclosed settings. After analyzing the case and calling for several holdings, on June 19th of the year 2000 the Supreme Court decided that these practices were indeed a violation to the United States Constitution.
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.
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.
Where to Draw the Line The First Amendment of the U.S. constitution boldly states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” As members of society, we witness this privilege utilized in both positive and negative ways through our daily lives. But, what happens when this liberty is abused and the emotions of certain groups are damaged in response to this “freedom?” Through his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard,” scholar and former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, expresses his firm claim that “Hanging a Confederate flag in public view or displaying a swastika in response is insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives students is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes
Analysis Republicans don’t agree with the assault weapon bans. They are suggesting other ways to prevent mass shooting. They believe assault weapons ban is going to encourage more crimes. Instead of banning assault weapons republics are suggesting to find out who has the access to those guns, especially people who are mentally ill. This is a serious concern because it would be impossible to track each and every person who is mentally
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.
There is nothing that says judges, individuals, or companies can ignore a law once its made because their beliefs don't follow under that law. Some people may believe in human sacrifice but that doesn't make it any less then murder. In The Judge John Kane case it was said that they were merely trying to follow through with their First Amendment right of freedom of religion. Although freedom of religion means they have the freedom to have it within the boundaries of the law. Health insurance is not a part of the religion therefore they must follow the Obama mandate.
When the question: Should we tolerate hate speech? Was posed on helium.com, 1025 views responded. Under the current laws here in United States hate speech is not considered a crime. There are laws in place concerning hate crimes, but some feel that a crime should not have to take place before the law protects them. Others argue that hate speech
The law against polygamy is a law based on morals. Countless people believe gay marriage is morally wrong however it is not illegal. It is merely frowned upon, nevertheless laws were not made on morals or things people do not approve of. Polygamy is something people believe is morally incorrect; even so it should not be against the