In today’s society we as American citizens hold our freedoms very highly, particularly the 1st Amendment i.e. the freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment states 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.”
Although obscenity, profanity, and slander for example, is not protected, the 1st Amendment however not protect someone from impersonating a public servant, but for some reason protects an individual from impersonating a member of the military, under the guise of freedom of speech. In this paper I will discuss my reasoning as to why impersonating a member of the brave men and women in the military should be a more heinous, criminal offense.
…show more content…
In order to convey my belief of why heavier penalties should be put into place, I simply ask individuals, “Would you want a person acting as a doctor or public servant, without going through the process to become one, going around putting on a charade for their own benefit, while others take a loss?” If one were to answer “no” then the question that needs to be asked is why can people impersonate soldiers and not doctors? For example, on 16FEB2016 an individual by the name of Malachi Love-Robinson, from West Palm Beach Florida, posed as a medical doctor while also treating patient. Robinson, when confronted by CNN affiliate WPBF, he simply said “I 'm hurt because of the accusations and allegations. But like I said, this is not the first time where I 've been accused and I will pursue this. And when I do, you guys will know." This implies he will continue to impersonate
During World War I, Charles Schenck sent a copious amount of circulars over to the draftees. The circulars consisted of anti-draft sentiments and claimed that the draft was despicably supported by the capitalist system. Schenk basically told the readers to join him in protest. Schenk was unsurprisingly charged with conspiracy for his action due to violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by causing disruption in the military and attempting to prevent military recruitment. The main issue emerging from this case was whether or not Schenck’s circulars were protected by the First Amendment’s via freedom of speech.
The stolen valor act is about lying about having military medals and the supreme made it illegal in 2012. People were claiming that they were in the military to get money and properties. I think it is a really good thing that there is a law in place for this. John Abel was charged with robbing a bank with two other men. In order to distract Respondents witness the prosecution offered testimony that he and the witness were part of a prison gang that promoted perjury on the of fellow gang members..
However, according to Document 1, “Any statement might interfere with the armed forces, incite disloyalty, or obstruct recruiting to the Army became a punishable offense.” So the Espionage Act was passed to punish anyone who conveyed information intended to interfere with the armed forces. The next year, the Sedition Act was passed to make harsh punishments against anyone who spoke false information that interfered with war. When the Espionage Act was made a law, according to Document 2, “Charles T. Schenck was convicted of violating the act by printing and distributing to draftees leaflets that urged them to resist the draft.” One argument used by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Charles T. Schenck was, “When a nation is at war many things which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight...
Why in America, if you put a white male in an uniform with a gun, is he considered a hero? David Masciotra, author of You don’t protect my freedom: Our childish insistence on calling soldiers heroes deadens real democracy, uses various rhetorical strategies; primarily appealing to ethos and pathos. He denounces those who join the armed forces, because not all of them deserve or have the right of being titled as “hero”. He utilizes ethos by using renowned figures all from different backgrounds to depict credibility in his argument. Masciotra also appeals to pathos through his usage of imagery and diction.
He also explains that he will never be addressed by his actual name
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.
A further consideration that must be taken into account while evaluating this case is that of time, place, and manner restrictions. Such restrictions are a sort of measuring stick when it comes to these types of freedom of speech issues. If a group or individual does not comply with time, place, and manner restrictions, their actions are no longer protected by the First Amendment. Meanwhile, if these restrictions are adhered to, a party has the constitutional right to voice their viewpoints.
Censorship of The First Amendment This paper will discuss how censorship denies citizens of the United States our full rights as delineated in the First Amendment. It will outline how and why the first amendment was created and included in the Constitution of the United States of America. This paper will also define censorship, discuss a select few legal cases surrounding freedom of speech and censorship as well as provide national and local examples of censorship.
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.
According to the First Amendment of the Constitution, every American citizen has the right to freedom of speech. As a right with no definite and clear boundaries, it has been misunderstood and taken advantage of. Protesting, a type of speech-plus or symbolic speech, is an example of when the topic of freedom of speech is misunderstood or taken out of context. Many times has an American citizen protested in what most would consider “unpatriotic” and “unjust.” The actuality of the situation is not far off; one might even say it is spot on.
To use private security companies for effective governmental use, the federal government needs to have less oversight. “Private military and security contractors are subject to a complex set of laws and regulations, and their activities are reviewed and reported on by more than 20 federal oversight bodies and committees. Many U.S. regulations are new and respond to concerns generated by the U.S. government's use of private military and security contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan” (University of Denver, 2014). With most laws and regulations with these companies evolving on a rapid pace, a set standard needs to be established. Too many changes in laws and regulations can confuse what is supposed to be established.
War is often regarded as a fight for freedom and democracy. However, how can we expect to achieve freedom and democracy when the military that is fighting for these rights does not grant its soldiers any. The novel Catch 22 written by Joseph Heller has many great examples of military bureaucracy and its negative effects. In fact, the name Catch 22 is a representation of this problem that takes place in the book the law Catch 22 states that to get out of combat duty the officer has to be crazy, but if he asks to be grounded then it means the officer is sane therefore he can’t be grounded. The Catch 22 rule shows how bureaucrats don’t listen to logical explanations and justify their decisions with absurd rules that only cause harm.
INTRO For hundreds of years, history has recorded countless stories and accounts of people that were willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause. Depending on their cause and which side history was recorded determined if they were the heroes or villains of their time. For the most part, these stories were of men or groups of men dedicated to sacrificing their lives for God, country, and/or family. While there are only a few examples of women during this same time, history finds itself encountering more examples of women willing to fight and even die for their given cause which begs us to ask why we are seeing an increasing use of female combatants as suicide bombers.
The second chapter contrasts current obsessions with physical fitness (taken to dangerous extremes by some body builders) with Stoic indifference to the body -- the body is external to happiness, and is to be regarded as a tool, to be kept in good condition, to be sure, but not valued for its own sake. Here the resonance with a military outlook is clear: physical fitness is a duty because of its role in mission readiness, and further, given the high risks to which the body is subjected, one can see some appeal in regarding it as a preferred indifferent. Yet Sherman pulls back: Drawing on anecdotes of soldiers who have lost limbs or suffered other disfiguring injuries, she argues that while Stoicism has much to offer in service of recovering
We no longer have freedom of speech in America out of fear of offending someone. These issues are not covered by the media so many people don’t believe that America is being censored. Many people are being fired or suspended because the words that were spoke by that person were to offensive for the other persons taste. Words are twisted by the media, and people are made out to be monsters all because of some words that were said, when really it’s just words. Paula dean was fired from the food industry because of something she said 30 years ago, Chick-Fil-A was boycotted because their views weren’t the same as others, Brendon Ike was fired because of a few words that he said on social media, it seems like everything that is said or done offends someone in some way.