Today we see a lot of protesting and opinions being stated all over social media. In the late 1960s the United States started to get involved in the Vietnam War, which started a lot of protests because people did not want to fight in a war that mainly did not concern them. In 1968, David O’Brien wanted to express his disapproval of the war (United States v. O’Brien). So, while standing outside the Boston Courthouse, he decided to burn his drafting card in front of quite a few people (United States v. O’Brien). He did this so he could exercise his first amendment right, which is the freedom of speech and/or press (United States v. O’Brien). If the same rules applied in today’s society everybody would be arrested, due to the outbreaks of people …show more content…
While reading Invispress, it stated that “In the United States when you turn 18, you must register for the draft” which was a immense deal at the time because people were forced to sign up for something they didn’t want to do or necessarily even believe in. Which is why O’Brien and a few other people burned their cards in protest. While O’Brien was expressing his beliefs, he got apprehended. He was convicted for violating 50 U.S.C.App. § 462(b), a part of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, subdivision (3) of which applies to any person "who forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such certificate” (Chris Skelton, Supreme) basically this is saying that it is illegal to forge, alter, or destroy a draft card (Invispress). During the time O’Brien was giving the speech a few Federal Bureau Investigators were …show more content…
I believe this case applies to the Criminal Justice Field because with all the protests and things being said it’s hard to really know when is the breaking point or the point where you take action. For example, if someone tweets “I hate all lunch ladies” and then decides to burn a lunch lady hat, is that person still protected under the first amendment? It’s ultimately a hard question to answer when you are stuck between what is right and what is wrong. Chief Justice Warren said, “We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea” which I agree with today, in the justice field, we see quite a few cops being threatened but you cannot just shoot a cop and yell I did it to express my first amendment rights. Without this case, the criminal justice field would not have a diverse way of amending certain situation involving the first amendment also we would not have the O’Brien test. This court case changed the way people viewed their rights to speak freely. This case helped change the way criminal justice professionals did their job because the O’Brien test, The O’Brien test is “describes a series of guidelines used to determine whether a law that restricts speech violates the First Amendment” this helped with cases that involved non-verbal
Introduction: You are sitting at your desk, taking notes from a teacher, and learning about the Revolutionary war. All of a sudden, you are banned from school and ripped from your studies, all because you believed in Gandhi’s non-violent movements. This same case happened to the Tinker students in Des Moines, Iowa. In the year 1965, the time of the Vietnam war, a group of students came together and wore black armbands with a white peace sign embeded on the side. These armbands were banned by the principals and the school board, with the punishment of suspension until the student was willing to take the armband off.
It brought about equality and fair justice. It was a case that spoke a lot of Warren court and their policies. It was symbolic of the new era and with it a symbol of equality and fairness. The rights of the accused were radically changing and people all around america were begining to see it. No longer was court a place for the wealthy, no longer were those who could not afford proper defense cast aside and convicted.
Earl Warren Many chief justices have worked on popular cases over the years. In particular I am going to be talking about Earl Warren; his early life, he was a past chief justice, why he chose what he did and the three major cases he worked on throughout his life. All of these affected our lives in one way or another. The three cases Earl Warren worked on were Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Benton v. Maryland.
On November 1, 1955, the Vietnam war began. The war was between North Vietnam and South Vietnam along with the United States to stop the spread of communism. Tim O’Brien walked alongside the South China Sea during his time in Vietnam. He and his soldiers called it Pinkville because of the color it was on the map which represented a misleading area. O’Brien published his novel The Things They Carried on war stories to show how storytelling can be believable although his novel is fiction.
In 1791 the founders of the United States ratified the Bill of Rights, which contained the freedom of speech and peaceful protest. American history is full of people taking full advantage of this
Throughout life we experience hardships, and we use these past experiences to help us make future decisions that overall grow as human beings. In Tim O ‘ Brien’s novel “The Things They Carried,” the characters not only carry physical baggage but emotional ones as well. They are forced to feel the effects of war such as guilt, burdens, and other factors that come with being a soldier. Soldiers going into the war often went in with immense pride that they were serving their country however in doing this they didn’t know they would lose their innocence and see the world in a new perspective when they returned. “My hometown was a conservative little spot on the prairie, a place where tradition counted” (O’Brien 38) shows where O’Brien lived in a place where things like the draft were taken very seriously.
This case determined that any evidence obtained that breached the Fourth Amendment would become unusable. Since racial injustice was pretty alive and well during the 1960 's, unlawful searches were happening all of the time, and POC had no way to protect themselves from whatever was being used against them after
The court decision was a pivotal decision in the field of civil rights. It created a monumental change in the American nation. Furthermore, it broke all the traditional views about segregation by supporting equality among Americans. The bottom line, this landmark case made the previous doctrine ‘separate but equal’ unconstitutional. Additionally, the decision was a great chance for American society to come to terms with its dark past in the field of segregation and slavery.
By lying Fields did not harm himself alone, but he damaged the integrity of those soldiers serving, or those who have served in the military. Fields claim of earning a purple heart, I believe, is also in violation of the stolen valor act, and not protected under the first amendment . Fields claim of earning a purple heart damages the sacredness of the award, and damages the reputation of those recipients of the purple heart. My verdict as a supreme court Justice would be to uphold Fields conviction of 1 year in
If I Die in a Combat Zone, depicts a soldier’s internal battle whether to enter the war or to escape, once the soldier is in the army, the book tells of his experience in Vietnam. Tim O’Brien believes the war in Vietnam is unethical and unjust through his experience upon being drafted, depictions of the battlefields, and how fellow soldiers acted. Tim O’Brien felt as if the war was unethical and unjust upon being drafted into the army. O’Brien attends basic training and finds out at the end, that he and a few others will become foot soldiers (pg. 56). This was what O’Brien had feared.
In the year 2006, the Stolen Valor Act made it illegal to make medals of Honor. The case brought forth to us describes issues brought about by this act. In United States v. Fields, Abel Fields attended a meeting where he proclaimed that he had military experience, and that he earned a Purple Heart. He had made false statements, and in turn was convicted, and had to pay a $1,000 fine. Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
In the Doc B. we see the definition of expression; "the process of making known one 's thoughts or beliefs." This demonstrates that their actions were just made to be acknowledged of because everyone her is open to their own opinion and therefore anyone making a protest is free to do so as long as they don 't go overboard and break a law. Additionally, in doc C we find that the people against the protest are visually racially divided, "that only 24% of white Americans support the 49ers quarterback ..." Just a few amounts of white Americans support this message. I believe that that comes from that fact that they may feel that their opinion is more valid with the skin color difference between the statistics.
People get so caught up in what others think and expect of them that they let it completely control the decisions they make. The soldiers in “The Things They Carried” have a fear of looking weak and cowardice. They let this fear and their pride control them even if it is not what they want. Tim O’Brien, Norman Bowker, and Curt Lemon are examples of soldiers who let fear control them. The soldiers fear that the people close to them and around them will discover their weaknesses.
People around the world have been protesting for years and each protest was made to reach a goal. Protests have been used to accomplish many things such as economic, cultural, or political issues. In the end, protests are a prominent part of history During the Vietnam War, thousands upon thousands of American Soldiers lost their lives in a war that wasn't their war to fight. Family members lost their sons, grandsons, or nephews. After seeing that too many people were dying, protesters marched to bring soldiers back to America.
O’brien was against the Vietnam War before and after got drafted. As a student, O’brien took a stand against the war, and participated the anti-war protest. In the Chapter, “On The Rainy River,” O’brien is talking about how he thought about fleeing to Canada when he received the draft notice. O’brien had a full-ride scholarship for grad studies at Harvard when he received the draft notice and he could not believed it because he was to smart to go war. Furthermore, he “hated dirt and tents and mosquitoes” ( O’Brien 39), he was not a soldier materiel.