The separation of powers is a way for the branches to not have to much power. For example, according to James Madison, Federalist #47, “Liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distant.” This means that the branches should not all have the same powers and should be very different from each other and not have to much power over one another. Separation of powers helps guard against tyranny by not allowing the branches to be too close to each other or this could very lead to tyranny. The branches should be close enough to check up on each other and have everything fair but not to close to where we could have tyranny in our government and
Similar to Frisby, this is a regulation of a virtual traditional public forum for a substantial government interest that is sufficiently narrowly tailored to meet that end. Just like the valid ordinance that limited where protestors can picket, Section 202.5 limits where the individual can go, and does not target based on what the message conveyed is. Essentially the statute is content neutral because it regulates one’s ability to access the website in the first place not what is being expressed. Section 202.5 is a specifically a content neutral time, place, manner regulation of protected speech because it bans registered sex offenders from accessing Facebook, which inadvertently limits their expression of speech on the social networking
The overbreadth doctrine differs from the void-for-vagueness doctrine as it applies more toward violations of Constitutional rights rather than criminal situations. The most commonly protected activity that the overbreadth doctrine prohibits infringement upon is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech rights of the people, when a law is found to be overbroad it is commonly restricting the rights of the people to express themselves freely. An overbroad law may be so restricting the people may decide not to participate in an activity for fear of being charged with a
In his essay, Wellman attempts to argue that legitimate states, ones that protect the rights of their citizens, through self determination have the right to close their borders to unwanted immigrants. This extends to the idea that states cannot morally be subjected to include anyone in their community and, concurrently, have the right to exclude any unwanted person. Wellman demonstrates that such states have this right on the basis of freedom of association, his second premise. Wellman’s third premise states that freedom of association includes the right to associate and to disassociate as well. Combined, the three premises Wellman’s provides develop into his argument that any legitimate state can morally refuse to allow immigrants into its territory even if they are in serious need.
The First Amendment aims to protect the right of freedom of religion and the right of freedom of expression of all United States citizens. However, Lawrence states “The Supreme Court has held that words that ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or intend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ are not constitutionally protected.” (Lawrence, pg 175) The First Amendment does not protect speech that maintains a sole purpose to inflict harm on other people. “Racial insults are undeserving for First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim” (Lawrence, pg 175) If someone is going to have a conversation with another person, than their freedom of speech should be protected, however; if someone had the sole intentions of causing harm or discomfort to the person that they were speaking with or at, then their freedom of speech may not be so protected. This should be of no concern to any persons on a college campus who are worrying about their right to freedom of speech or expression being neglected, considering that speech codes only work to prevent harm inflicted by hate speech to all students. I agree with Lawrence in that if we are going to end racism, we, as a society, have to take small steps in protecting minority
In a democracy, freedom of speech and the press must be accorded great respect, but other values such as national security, the protection of reputation or public safety sometimes conflict with First Amendment guarantees. Discuss the approaches that have been used by the Supreme Court to define the limits on expression. How have these approaches been applied in specific cases? Several restrictions have been formulated on expression. The first approach used by the Supreme Court is the Clear and Present Danger.
Galloway explains that free speech is the underlying foundation of a democratic government and allows discussions on important issues and provides access to information which develops an informed society and encourages the prevailing of truth. While it is ensured by the Constitution, freedom of speech is not an absolute right as the Parliament is allowed to enact laws to restrict it, especially when it involves hate speech. There is no universally agreed definition for hate speech but the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers Recommendation 97(20) stated that hate speech covers ‘all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other
John Rawls develops civil disobedience as a way to fight against acts of injustice that occur in a nearly just society (Rawls, p. 363). Civil disobedience must be enacted to establish legitimate democratic authority, so it does not apply to other methods of protest such as military resistance (Rawls, p. 363). Rawls focuses on the conflict of duties between a person’s obligation to follow the laws put in place by the democratic majority, in contrast with their right to oppose unjust laws and fight for their personal liberties (Rawls, p. 363). Rawls defines civil disobedience as a “public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”
A constitution is a set of fundamental and entrenched rules governing the conduct of an organisation or nation, establishing its concept, character, and structure. It is usually a short document general nature and embodying the aspirations of values of its writers and subjects. (Business Dictionary, 2015). A constitution is the ultimate authority; any action, which contravenes the rules of the constitution, will be both unconstitutional and unlawful. It will also help identify the rights and freedoms of citizens through a bill of rights, which operates both to protect citizens and to restrict the power of the state.
Palestine is an occupied territory, and Israeli is an occupying power in this case the international humanitarian law has to recognize the relation between them. Israel signed in the Geneva conventions which are linked to the International humanitarian law, but it does not respect or follow it. For example, article 53 in the fourth Geneva convention says ” Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations” . This right prohibits any destruction from the occupying power towards the occupied individual or the republic. Israel violates this convention and the International humanitarian law by constructing the wall in the occupied Palestinian territory.