The First Amendment sates that “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”. The constitution of Georgia Preamble states that it is guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution in Article 1, section 1, paragraph 5: "No law shall be passed to curtail or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. -Every person may speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that liberty (2015)."
Based on Georgia constitution CARWARE has a right to air their commercial because Georgia constitution promotes freedom of speech and will not be curtail or restrained, however CARDWARE will be responsible for any abuse or repercussion that comes with it. It depends on who is looking at the content is considered inappropriate, therefore CADWARE should be able to air their commercial without being discriminated against while sharing their ideas.
…show more content…
Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) describe a scenario about them driving in their car and some profanity came on air. He then complained to the FCC and gave him a response which was not anything formal but an advice to "associated with the station 's license file, and, in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress (1978)." Which means there is limited sanction they can take because based on the constitution restrain must be substantial and poses a threat, false, misleading
The Constitution of 1876 was not the first constitution Texas had declared for itself. It was actually the fifth. When Texas had been released from Mexico's rule in 1836 it hastily drafted a constitution to basically cover itself from from any attacks. It was rushed and therefore nine years later another was written just before the annexation. Then in 1866 Texas after another constitution was written to changes with the times, Texas was trying to rejoin the federal Union and was required to write another new constitution.
On the other hand, Cornell explains that this “will of the people” was often contorted on both sides as political debate. Thus, the “dissenting tradition” was not more than who was more qualified to run the government through countless debates and public appeal. As explained by Cornell,”Each side expended enormous energy crafting appeals to persuade citizens that it was better qualified to represent the will of the people” (Cornell 21). Thus, the Anti-Federalists were using the people to debate themselves in the public sphere to gain the will of the common man and avoid the evil corrupt centralized authority.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that women are citizens. Women have never been legally declared persons in this country, not by the Founding Fathers, not by the Constitution, not by the Supreme Court. The Fifteenth Amendment guarantees to right to vote to all U.S. citizens, whatever their race, whether they had been born free or born a slave, but it didn’t include women the right to vote. Women fought along for the abolition of slavery. When the battle was won, black men got the right to vote.
As the roaring twenties reached their end the battle against alcohol in the United States is just arising to a turning point. With serious controversy over the Volstead Act the country was greatly divided. There was also the extreme rising occurrences of crime, the creation of gangs and a newly established, unorganized criminal justice system. Prohibition was a disaster across America and the more reforment from the government just made things worse.
The Volstead Act is commonly known as the War Prohibition Act. This piece of legislation is interesting in it 's beginning, all the way to its appeal in 1933. The Act was introduced in the House of Representatives by Andrew Volstead on June 27, 1919. From there it passed in the House on July 22, 1919.The Senate added an amendment and passed it September 5, 1919. President Woodrow Wilson vetoed it on October 27, 1919.
The main reason why the Framers didn’t succeed in their final compromise is because it was too difficult to make all the delegates (who were basically competing) agree with each other, so numerous issues were ignored and most plans were severely compromised. An example of this is the debate between larger and smaller states over their representation in the newly proposed Senate. Two solutions were significantly favored: the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan. The smaller states were in favor of the New Jersey Plan, which would enforce each state to send the same number of representatives to Congress. The larger states supported the Virginia Plan, which called for each state to have a different number of representatives based on the state’s population.
The FCC is responsible with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable.” (Federal Communications Commission). Almost everyone takes obscene, indecent and profane broadcasts seriously, and based on the severity of their context, can be punishable by law. Enforcement actions by the FCC in the form of warnings, impose a monetary forfeiture and or the revoking of a stations licenses can be issued after a complaint is filed and a violation has been confirmed.
GMI and HDTV will not be convicted because the First Amendment protects commercial speech. Commercial speech is not protected as noncommercial speech. For example, to protect consumers, a state may ban certain kinds of marketing practices, such as untrustworthy or false advertising. In general, a restriction on commercial speech will be considered valid as long as it falls between strict, intermediate, or rational scrutiny rules. Here, the complete ban on video ads "because the games might be damaging to teenagers " is too restrictive: it goes too far in attempting to protect minors for an apparently unconfirmed
1. Personally, I believe the constitution was the better document because it had more power. The articles of confederation gave the states more power than congress had, and because of this states either did was it said or did not. Because of the states having more power over Congress, the states did not focus on the needs of the whole country but only cared for their own state and what is best for their people. The constitution is better because it was easier to make changes and amendments to it.
Chapter 4 of the book We the People talks about Civil Liberties, this chapter mainly talks about the Rights that were placed in the Constitution (not in the Bill of Rights), it also talks about the Bill of Rights and it describes the rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It also talks about specific rights that work close together with the Bill of Rights and Amendments rights. One of the first Amendments that is described in great detail is Freedom of Speech and Religion. The first Amendment protects US citizens right to talk about almost any topic in the United States. I said almost any topic because there are some forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment (these forms of speech can be limited or prohibited), some of the forms of speech that aren’t protected by the First Amendment are Fighting Words and Hate Speech, Student Speech, Libel and Slander speech.
Redmond Peiro Ms. Smith Maryland State Constitution Paper 9 February, 2016 In the months preceding the American Revolution, a convention was held in Annapolis between a number of Maryland’s most powerful men in which to discuss the development of a new government. In addition to this, they sent representatives to the Continental Congress to finalize pre-war preparations. On July 3, 1776 the convention agreed that a new group was to be created to draw up their first state constitution as the old ad hoc government structure was considered inadequate. “That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole.”
Federalists and Anti-Federalists both have an arguable amount of supporters. I am in favor of the Anti-Federalist point of view. The Anti-Federalists believed the Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts, at the expense of the state and local courts. They argued that the federal courts would be too far away to provide justice to the average citizen. In addition the Constitution allows the government too much power,does not provide for a republican government, and it also does not include a Bill of Rights, which is vital.
A constitution is the fundamental law by which a nation or a state is governed and organized. It establishes the framework of government, delegates the powers and duties of governmental bodies, and defines the relationship between the government and their citizens. Texas current constitution was adopted in 1876, and since then Texas voters have approved more than 467 amendments to this document. The word “amendment” is defined as the act or process of changing the words or the meaning of a law or document (constitution). Throughout this essay I will explain the rules for amending the Texas Constitution, the attempts made at constitutional reforms during the 1970s, explain why constitutional reforms were attempted and why it ultimately failed.
The Southern and Northern states differentiate on many issues, which ultimately led them towards a Civil War. There stood deep social, economic, and political disparities between the North and the South. These modifications stemmed from the understanding of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, most of these disputes about the rights of states directed to the Civil War. There existed reasons other than slavery on behalf of the South 's breakaway.
Censorship can be described as the act of cutting out certain material that can be considered obscene or inconvenient for the community. This material can be found in social media such as in the TV, radio, or the internet. Censorship can be challenged because of the first amendment: freedom of speech. Free expression is the right of expressing opinions and ideas without any fear of being restrained or censored. However, freedom of speech does not include the right to incite actions that would harm others or the distribution of obscene material (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2000).