Ashcroft V Free Speech Coalition Summary

This supreme court decision expressed national power more than many. This decision showed how much more power the national government has then the states within the nation. It was in this ruling that they reminded the nation that the constitution is just meant to be a basic outline of general ideas that are easily understood by the public (Jones Martin). If I was the supreme court I feel that I would've made a very similar decision. Reason being is that the national government should have much more power of states controlling what is right and what isnt.

This case highlights how important the Supreme Court is to setting legal precedent and preserving the states' and the federal

“Poehlman's erotic e-mails cannot provide proof of predisposition because nothing he says in them helps differentiate his state of mind prior to the government's intervention from that afterwards.” (Poehlman p.6) and “The only indication in the record of any preexisting interest in children is Poehlman's statement in the hotel room that he has ‘always looked at little girls’, hardly an indication that he was prone to engage in sexual relations with minors.” (Poehlman p.6). In the case of U.S. v. Poehlman, “it was the government who initiated contact or suggestions of impropriety” (Poehlman p.7). Whereas in State v. Heitman, “it was Heitman [that]

In Texas v. Johnson the court ruled that courts cannot limit freedom of speech solely because the thing being said is offensive or disagreeable to others. I agree with the courts on these last two rulings when comparing them to Fields case because I believe that Fields has the right to freedom of speech even if his speech contained a false statement. I believe that Fields’ statement although morally wrong, was not an act of malaise and did not cause harm to any individual. I think that most people would agree that what Fields said was morally wrong and was hurtful to those who have fought and been injured to protect our freedom here in the United States of

Iowa (Coy v. Iowa case brief, 2014). “The majority found that the defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation had been violated in the case” (Thuet, 1994, p. 16). The state argued that the purpose for the statue was too protect the children and without the protection some cases would not even make it into court. They argued that, if the child’s testimony went unheard there was no real vital evidence that would convict the defendant. However, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments from the state and stated that, “the necessity of protecting the victims of sexual abuse outweighed the right of confrontation” (Thuet, 1994, p. 16).

The statute defined contraceptives as obscene and illicit, making it a federal offense to disseminate birth control through the mail or across state lines.” (Anthony Comstock’s ‘Chastity’). During this time, Anthony wanted to censor the knowledge and access to obscene contraceptives and obscene writings. This was a “controversial law because it limited the reproductive right of women and violated every person’s right to privacy”(Seward). The censorship he put on women and society caused the government to gain more control over the people by limiting the information they knew.

Justice Antonin Scalia made no apologies for his legal philosophy of “originalism,” despite opposition from other justices and the public. Scalia believed that the United States Constitution should strictly be interpreted in terms of what the founding fathers had meant for it when the Constitution was written. Scalia’s critics contended that the Constitution is a “living document,” therefore, it should allow the courts to take into consideration evolving viewpoints of society. I. Antonin Scalia: A brief overview of his law career beginning in 1961.

Kara’s strongest argument was that adopting the resolution is a violation of the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech etc. She justified her argument by providing evidence that adopting the resolution is unconstitutional because it has not made it through the US Supreme Court, thus the government has little control on media violence. This went against Corissa’s argument that if the government can have control over children watching pornography then the same control should be implemented for children watching media violence. This is an example of an argument from principle because it appeals to values such as justice or equality (Herrick). Furthermore, I believe Corissa won the debate.

Many people often use the first amendment to get away with committing horrible and despicable crimes. Although, I have never experienced up close or personal myself, but I have observed an abundance of news, movies and documentary television shows. Whereas, countless people have plead the first amendment to get away with cases such as child pornography, disturbing websites, and other horrible tends of self-expression or interest. Consequently, I consider that just like with other debates and argument of society’s concerns and problems, our amendments have their pros and cons. Hence, the constitutional amendments are frequently used in the court of law; equally can bend both ways.

In the 1915 case of Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, the Supreme Court observed that motion pictures do not constitute part of the “press” in the State of Ohio. For this reason, motion pictures were held not entitled to First Amendment protection from censorship. This case arose in response to the passing of a statute, whereby

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

Fraser was a Supreme Court case in 1986 involving whether or not the First Amendment prevents schools from getting a high school student at an assembly in trouble for giving a speech that is offensive in any sexual way. At aa school, a student known as Matthew Fraser gave a speech to nominate one of the students that went to that school for elective office. As Fraser gave a speech, members of the audience felt that he was using graphically sexual metaphors. The school didn’t tolerate this so they prohibited his use of offensive language and suspended Fraser from school for two days.

Everyone loves having the ability to voice their opinions without restrictions. This right is called Freedom of Speech, taking this away from Americans would be the equivalent to causing WWIII. People often use this right to defend themselves when stating opinions However, how long does it take before Freedom of Speech simply becomes Hate Speech? Written in 1789 the Bill of Rights contains about 27 Amendments, these were soon ratified down into the 10 Amendments we’re familiar with today. Amongst these amendments is the 1st amendment, which grants us some of our most important rights as humans.

Packingham v. North Carolina The case of Packingham v. North Carolina revolves around the use of the first amendment. In this case Lester Gerard Packingham is accuse of breaking a North Carolina law that states “§ 14-202.5.- It is unlawful for a sex offender who is registered in accordance with Article 27A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages on the commercial social networking Web site.” (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutelookup.pl?statute=14-202.5). The reason that Packingham is being charged with this crime is because of a 2010 face book status update

The law, however, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed,” (Bowers v. Hardwick). This case was decided by the justices who acted as curators of the Constitution, and the words contained within. The Constitution says nothing about there being a right to commit sodomy, and the mentalities of the Founding Fathers enforce this. These cases are very similar. Like Lawrence, the Amendment in issue was the 14th.