First Amendment Rights Case Study

And, it is not over yet because, in violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, Solomon did not receive notification of the forfeiture against property where he had an interest. At all times, the government knew that he was incarcerated in either the county or the U.S. Penitentiary. The rules that authorize service of process of notice upon inmates subject to forfeiture via a newspaper publication is not sufficient legal notice because inmates do not have access to receiving or reviewing the notice. Furthermore, the posting of the notice at a local courthouse where they are denied access to view the publication is not legally sufficient notice.

Does the First Amendment, Free Expression Clause, apply to the New York State law against Criminal Anarchy, depriving Giltow of his liberty of expression under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Benjamin Gitlow, a member of the Socialist Party of America, advocated the overthrow of organized government by force, violence, and other unlawful means through his Left Wing Manifesto. He was arrested and charged with criminal Anarchy, “the policy that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence... or by any unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine either by word of mouth or writing is a felony”. Gitlow argued that the New York law was an unconstitutional limit forced by the state on the rights guaranteed

“He was charged under a Texas statute that prohibited desecration of a venerated object (including...a state or national flag).” In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned the American flag as part of his demonstration against nuclear weapons. It started as an organized protest along the streets of Dallas, and ended up being an offensive act to witnesses of the scene. One could attempt to justify Gregory’s unlawful action as an expression of his First Amendment. However, as a justice on the US Supreme Court, I would have to agree with opinion B, because it appropriately supports the reason for Johnson’s conviction.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under Arizona and First Amendment law, did the trial court correctly find that a comedian’s hateful rhetoric constituted fighting words and was thus not protected speech when at a comedy show he: (1) made derogatory references in regards to a politician’s heritage; (2) called for the killing of the politician’s family; (3) mentioned the politician’s name; and (4) repeated his language by posting on the politician’s social media pages? 2. Did the trial court correctly find that the comedian’s speech was a “true threat” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment when he: (1) called for the beating of a politician; (2) lit a campaign poster on fire depicting the politician; and (3) caused the severe emotional distress of

“The students alleged that Westside 's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requires that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages” (Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens by and Through Mergens). Many still argue today that Westside 's prohibition against the Christian club, consistent with the Establishment Clause, makes the Equal Access Act unconstitutional.

Government Regulation: The Frist Amendment & College Campuses Without a doubt college campuses attract a number of different groups. Many advocates, religious groups, hate groups, and individuals come to college campuses in hopes of expressing their opinion to impressionable college students. Under the First Amendment of the United States the Federal Government (and as applied to state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause) the freedom of speech and religions is freely allowed to expressed without restraint by the federal government. Again, everyone has a first amendment right to free speech. First Amendment issues constantly arise on college campuses, but free speech on college campuses have long been a medium in young

Rule: The Court held 5-4 that no the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at or across the street from a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting

To be honest I wouldn’t give up my freedom for increased security from terrorism. Benjamin Franklin stated, “They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” I couldn’t have said it any better. We have been fighting for our rights for a very long time. Many people have died to ensure that people have liberties.

Today’s college students are becoming more sensitized to the harshness of the outside world. Instead of learning to be resilient to others’ comments, they are being taught to take offense to any little word that could in some way be connected with a bad experience they might have had, and college administrators and professors are aiding this childish behavior. They are backing this movement to make adults into children. With this new movement to rid college campuses of any speech that may make anyone feel uncomfortable, students are being treated less like adults, and more like elementary children.

Because of the Court 's decision to uphold students’ right to symbolic

Our country was built with big minds. Our founding fathers wanted discussion. They welcomed differing opinions, invited discord, and encouraged opposition because they wanted to be released from the oppression and bondage of tyranny from Great Britain. They fought for our freedom so we could govern ourselves and our country

I can’t fully express anything that I want and its due to the security and general welfare of other fellow peers. A lot of class work has to be censored and cant be used for the sole purpose of education. We too, students, are persons under the American Constitution . So so this extent, i can say that our government has altered the first amendment.

When it comes to policing there is a huge struggle power struggle between individual rights and public order. You want to keep individual rights, but you also want to keep public order while keeping the public safe. It may seem hard to keep the balance between these two, but doing so is of utter importance. Here are some examples of why it can be hard to balance individual rights and public order when dealing with policing.

The idea of free speech on college campuses and the complications of it stem from those on campuses expressing views that don’t align with popular views. Implications for students who use the idea of free speech as a method for hateful actions and comments should be reprimanded, but the question remains as to whether schools should enforce tougher limitations. The freedom of speech on college campus expands to the freedoms of religion, assembly, press, and protest as well. Freedom of expression allows students to show their own political, social, and cultural views. Removing freedoms of speech and expression have consequences deeper than surface issues.

Censorship of student speech is incompatible with higher education because not only is college meant for students to go learn and develop but it is also meant for students to be able to explore new ideas and be able to talk and say whatever they please. After watching the two videos by FIRE, i have concluded that in the first video when the University of Cincinnati had only let people that wanted to pass out flyers and make word of what there cause is about the college forced them to stay in a designated area that they could not move out of or they would be arrested for trespassing. The university that is doing this to the group is being very unconstitutional. Also because they are a big university they think that they could do anything even