Case Study: Mccann V. The Ottawa Sun

As Holmes had stated there are other forms that are not protected which are known as lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting words. The case Chaplinsky v New Hampshire in 1942 determined that fighting words and other forms of speech are not protected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky had argued that the New Hampshire law violated his Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits states from infringing on citizens’ fundamental freedoms and as a result, kept him from exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech. While states are not allowed to inhibit expression of ideas, the Court did not convict him for the expression of his ideas but because his words (calling religion a ‘racket’ and a city marshal ‘damned racketeer’ and ‘damned fascist’)

Westover v United States: In Kansas City, Westover was arrested as a suspect in two Kansas City robberies. The FBI received a report that Westover was wanted in California on a felony charge. The night of the arrest and the next morning, Westover was questioned by local police. FBI agents also interrogated Westover for two and a half hours at the station. Westover signed two statements, which were prepared by one of the agents during the questioning, to both California robberies.

In 2003, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed with the Plaintiff and deemed that the revised s.51(e) was unconstitutional because it did in fact violate the Charter.

One example of freedom of expression being contested in a court of law was the Pickering v. Board of Education case Where the U.S. Supreme Court held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements, the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being terminated from his position.

The first amendment guarantees five basic freedoms to the American citizens. These freedoms are of speech, press, petition, assembly and religion. As all the amendments, the first amendment is intended for use in situations with the government. The first amendment was written by James Madison and was sent to the states to be ratified on September 25, 1789 along with the twelve proposals for the bill of rights.. Then it was officially adopted on December 15, 1791.

In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland. In response to this, “The Maryland legislature responded to this action by levying a tax on all branches of banks “not chartered by the legislature”—a move aimed at destroying the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States."1James McCulloch who was a banker at the branch in Baltimore refused to pay the annual tax. He was convicted by Maryland state court and fined a total of 2,500 dollars. Losing at the state

The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today. There have been many cases where the Supreme Court has had to make a decision, and most of the time it is an almost split decision.

Defamation is a tort, a wrongful act where somebody has made false statements and the intent of the statement is to harm a person’s good name and/or reputation. Defamation can be either one of the two types: slander, which are written defamatory statements or libel which are defamatory statements made

On the sidewalks of Rochester in the year 1942, Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for repeating 'You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist’ to a police officer. Chaplinsky’s statements violated a New Hampshire law prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words or sounds said unto an individual or party in a public place. He appealed the decision of the District Court, and when it came to the Supreme Court, they came to a profound decision. Supreme Court Justice Murphy said there are certain words that could reasonably result in a fight or a breach of peace when uttered. These “fighting words” are not protected under the first Amendment. Fighting words shouldn’t be a constitutional issue because people are allowed to speak, even is it will cause a flare in tempers.

Ann's statement establishes a basis for dismissal because it created a negative impact on proper decorum, especially after it was leaked to the other colleagues causing a negative reaction among the staff. Teachers do not lose their constitutional rights when entering their profession, nevertheless, they should avoid personal attacks and slanderous statements when exercising their freedom of

Keegstra appealed to the Court of Queen’s Bench, before his trial, for an order to overturn the charge. The defense argued that the appeal should be allowed because sections 319(2) and 319(3) (a) of the Criminal Code are constitutional. Section 319(3) (a) of the code states that a person cannot be convicted of promoting hate if he or she establishes that the statement is true, guaranteed in section 11 of the Charter. However, Keegstra was unable to demonstrate the truth of the many prejudice statements he made to his students and many of Keegstra’s former students testified against him. Keegstra appealed his conviction and claimed the conviction was in violation of section 2(b). Section 2(b) guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including the freedom of the press and other media of

One of the very first trails that would gravely expand the powers of Congress through one single clause, the Commerce Clause, would have to be the Gibbons vs. Ogden case, which took place in circa 1824. The dispute began due to the fact that the state of New York gave Aaron Ogden a state license that allowed him to operate his steamboat ferries between New Jersey and New York. Conflicts emerged, since Thomas Gibbons, who received his license from the federal government, also operated his ferries along the same route. Both men believed that their own license was superior to the other. This dispute then made its way to the Supreme Court. The Court then ruled in Gibbons favor; not only because they believed that a federal license was of more

In Commonwealth v. Newman, 429 PA. 441 (1968), on November 16, 1964, at about 11:30 a.m. four detectives went to appellant 's home with a body warrant for appellant and a search warrant for the premises. The complaint for the search warrant recited that the affiant, Detective John McCrory, deposed that there was probable cause to believe that certain books, papers, and other items used for the purpose of a lottery were in the possession of Henderson Newman at or near 721 West Mary Street. They forcefully entered the appellant 's home without announcement or purpose. The court held that, the forcible entry without announcement of purpose violates the Fourth Amendment. The fruits of an illegal search are inadmissible under Mapp v. Ohio,

Buchhandler-Raphael, Michal. "Overcriminalizing Speech." Cardozo Law Review 36.5 (2015): 1667-1737. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.

In the light of the above facts, the following arguments can be drawn. First of all, blasphemy laws or hate speech laws violate the basic fundamental right of every individual that is the right to freedom of expression along with right to equality which is another fundamental right of the people. These fundamental rights are protected by International Human rights instruments. A blasphemy law in practise prohibits the freedom of expression when it comes to the offering of criticism, asking of questions, making an expression of mockery or contempt or ridicule or sarcasm, in any way relating to any religion. A person was found guilty because his newspaper published James Kirkup’s poem “The Love that Dares to Speak its Name”, which supposedly