Cantwell V Connecticut Case Study

People have the tendency to take the First Amendment for granted, but some tend to use it to their favor. Stanley Fish presents his main argument about how people misuse this amendment for all their conflicts involving from racial issues to current political affairs in his article, Free-Speech Follies. His article involves those who misinterpret the First Amendment as their own works or constantly use it as an excuse to express their attitudes and desires about a certain subject matter. He expresses his personal opinions against those who consistently use the First Amendment as a weapon to defend themselves from harm of criticism.

The Confederate flag is a contentious topic, creating a great amount of controversy. Recently, especially, over the course of this year, the question on whether U.S. citizens should be allowed to display the Confederate flag has been addressed throughout our society. Individuals who are in favor and defend the battle of the Confederate flag, state that this is only a symbol that represents their heritage and early America. However, this flag can additionally be as a symbol of hate. For instance, with reason, numerous American citizens believe this flag represents white supremacy and is extremely offensive. For this reason, I believe students should not be allowed to display the Confederate flag while in school. If there are some people who would find this display as a representation for hate and racism, then the flag should not be permitted. Even if there was only one person who found offense, then others should give that person respect.

Issue: Morse vs. Frederick, 2002; Frederick, a high school senior, hung a banner saying: “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school supervised activity. Morse, the principal, suspended him for 10 days saying the banner promoted illegal drug use to those attending the school supervised activity. Frederick sued Morse saying his First Amendment rights were violated. Issue: Does the First Amendment allow public school to prohibit students from displaying banners with messages promoting use of illegal drugs at school supervised activities?

1947 case involved a challenge to a New Jersey law allowing the state to pay for busing student to parochial school.

In the case of State v. Barrett (1996), a drug detection team was brought in to conduct a random drug search of the high school on May 3, 1995 in St. Tammany Parish. Six classes were chosen by the principal, who had mentioned some of the selected classes were known to have some of the "problem" students, including the 18 year-old defendant. During the third classroom search, the defendant 's classroom, students were asked to empty their pockets and leave the room. The dogs were brought in and one of the dog 's alerted a smell on the defendant 's wallet. After the principal searched the wallet and found $400 in cash, he placed it in a different location, which the dog alerted on once again. While searching the defendant 's book bag, they

J.D.B v. North Carolina, involved a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student. J.D.B was stopped and questioned by police when they observed him near the site of two home break-ins. Five days later, a digital camera matching one of the items from one of the home break-ins was found at J.D.B’s school and was observed to be in J.D.B.’s possession. Investigator Diconstanzo went to the school and a uniformed police officer went to the school and removed J.D.B. from his classroom and escorted him to a closed-door conference room. Police and school administrators questioned him for a minimum of 30 minutes; without giving him his Miranda warnings or the opportunity to call his legal guardian. They also did not advised him he was free to leave the room. At first J.D.B denied any involvement, but later confessed after being urged by officials to tell the truth and informing him of the possibility of juvenile detention. After J.D.B. confessed Diconstanzo told him he could refuse to

According to www.rutherford.org As Benjamin Franklin proclaimed “who ever would throw a liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech . To protect this principle the founders established the freedom of speech/press in the first amendment.

Though prayer can seem innocent enough, Smiths’ action of praying while performing the duty of a judge violates the establishment clause; seeing how Roger Robber is being subjected to Smiths’ beliefs. As made evident in the 1992 decision in the case of Lee v. Weisman, public schools, which function under the supervision of the government, cannot perform religious invocations and benedictions during a graduation, as doing so violates the establishment clause. A public school sponsoring a prayer at a graduation is considered “excessive government entanglement” when the objective is to create a prayer that is to be used in a formal religious exercise, which students, for all practical purposes are obliged to attend, resulting in a violation of the establishment clause. Going back to Smith, his inclusion of prayers while serving the government shows that there is no separation between church and state. This is a clear violation, seeing how Robber is placed in a highly religious environment, meaning that religious beliefs are likely to take the place of the law and completely disregarding the

Police pull over a car with Joseph Pringle and two other people in the car, and Pringle was in the front seat of the car, when law enforcement officials search the car. Police officers discover in the car baggies of cocaine in the back seat of the car and $763 in the compartment up front. None of the three people in the car would confess to whom the drug belonged to and so all of them were arrested. When arriving at the police station Pringle admitted that the cocaine belong to him and then he was charged with intent to sell and possession of cocaine. Pringle then stated that there was no probable cause to arrest him, and the Maryland court system stated there was probable cause and proceed to convict him (Maryland v Pringle 540 U.S.

The main facts of the case California v. Greenwood are that in the beginning of 1984, the police of Laguna Beach, California had information that gave them reason to believe that a certain person, Billy Greenwood, was dealing drugs. A police officer named Jenny Stracner told the garbage collectors to bring the trash from Greenwood’s residence to the police station so that they could go through the garbage to find if there was evidence of drug dealing. They did. They then obtained a warrant to search the house, and found more evidence. The police then arrested Greenwood. The case involves the question of whether or not the police were within their rights to search the trash that was left at the curbside without a warrant. The amendment

The oral argument in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell consists of Isaacman’s arguments along with the justices’ questioning of both attorneys. Isaacman argued that parody, specifically the Campari Ad which contained a fake interview about Jerry Falwell’s incestuous relationship with his mother, should be protected by the First Amendment. On the other side of the argument, Grutman who represented Jerry Falwell argued that the speech should be held liable because it caused emotional distress.

The issue in this case is whether Prairie Meadows has a right under the Iowa Code to withhold gambling winnings from involuntary trespassers.

Separation of Church and state should remain a priority in order to prevent prejudice of religion. In the 2014 Supreme Court ruling, Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby was under attack for not including contraceptives in their health care. By not providing them to employees, Hobby Lobby was violating the contraceptives mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (hobbylobbycase.com). The Christian-based business fought back, arguing that it was within their religious freedom to choose not to offer something they were against.

Since the early 20th Century, prayer in school has been a huge argument, and is still one of the most heated arguments in today’s society. The debate came about in 1948, when the Supreme Court handed down its first decision on the issue of religion in public schools, ruling in McCollum v Board of Education that it is unconstitutional to conduct religious education within public school buildings (Cohen par. 5). Many people stated that principals did not want the non-Christian students to feel uncomfortable, but did they ever think that not praying in schools could make the Christians students uncomfortable? Not letting students pray in school violates the 1st Amendment. Prayer at this level, that is nurturing a relationship between God and ourselves,

Though people often confuse the rights and responsibilities of a citizen, they are both two different things. According to Brainpop (n. d.) “a right is a freedom that is protected, such as the right to free speech and religion. A responsibility is a duty or something you should do, such as recycling or doing your homework.” The difference can therefore be observed in the fact that the right is something the law protects you with, while the responsibility is something the law requires you to fulfill. The right should not make someone forget that they have responsibilities. If you have the right to live, you cannot go everywhere smoking in the public and causing people heart attacks, and expect to be protect