Michael Milkovich

many years since it was established. These cases have been decided by a very close vote. Each

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 the article, “The Indispensable Opposition,” author, Walter Lippmann, argues his claim that we must view the freedom of oppositions as a way to improve our decisions in a democratic society rather than just tolerating that freedom of speech. When freedom of speech is tolerated and only seen as a right to speak, Lippmann believes that the liberty of opinion becomes a luxury.

The Supreme Court has been entrusted with the task of interpreting the Constitution of the United States. In the First Amendment of the Constitution, freedom of speech serves as the foundational liberty which is the cornerstone to the practice of democracy. Commencing at the early part of the twentieth century cases such as Schenck v. United States, Debs v. United States, Abrams v United States, Whitney v. California, and Dennis v. United States, paved the way for the Court to set the legal standard for defining protected and unprotected speech. Nonetheless, the Court has struggled to interpret said boundaries property and has failed to protect speech in some of the above cases. This essay will analyze two different scenarios where the Court

This decision was upheld by The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. However, later the United Stated Supreme Court made a reversal and ruled that probable cause existed. This reversal lead to The US Supreme Court also making a reversal in their decision in the Spinelli case; it was determined that the” totality of the circumstances” should be considered when testing if probable cause,

In the case McCann v. The Ottawa Sun, 1993 CanLII 5507 (ON SC), the General Division of the Ontario Court was correct when stating the published words by The Ottawa Sun were insufficient to carry the Mayor of Pembroke’s action of defamation. At the same time, the columnist’s comments can be considered a humorous remark, which is a prove individuals in Canada have freedom of speech, which is the ability to communicate ideas without the interference of the state.

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.

Although he does not agree with the majority ruling, Burger does find that Gertz was wrongly held accountable. He cites the importance of Sixth Amendment and that lawyers should be viewed as neither positive nor negative. Further, he argues such views would cause lawyers to become selective with unpopular clients. Berger states: "The important public policy which underlies this tradition—the right to counsel—would be gravely jeopardized if every lawyer who takes an "unpopular" case, civil or criminal, would automatically become fair game for irresponsible reporters and editors who might, for example, describe the lawyer as a "mob mouthpiece" for representing a client with a serious prior criminal record, or as an "ambulance chaser" for representing a claimant in a personal injury

Have you ever wondered why some college campus protests are shutdown even though the first amendment is in place? The first amendment does not always protect in every situation. The first amendment wasn’t enforced much until the 1960’s and 70’s, when the anti-war and gender equality protests first started. College campuses have a right to impede on the first amendment if it is restricting someone else’s rights. In many cases some protesters will block off an entrance to an event or will start to harass people walking past. In rarer cases some will protest on things that may cause fights.

The case of the United States vs Miller is an intriguing case to say the least. It started with two men trying to transport sawed off shotguns and ended with a little bit of blood and some prison time. This was a case best explain by Doctor Brian L Frye in his paper The Peculiar Story of United States vs. Miller.

Justice Abe Fortas believes certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting .Hugo black argues that one should not demonstrate when he pleases and where he pleases. Justice Abe Fortes argues that certain kinds of speech should not be prohibited within an educational setting. In the story there was plenty of points one is ,” The prohibition of expression of one particular opinion….is not constitutionally permissible.”(Paragraph 8) The next important one talk about the student’s rights and it says,” A students rights, therefore, do not embrace merely classroom hours …….he mat express his opinions, even on controversional subjects…..” The next important quote from the story talks freedom of expression and it says,”In our system undifferented fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” (Paragraph 4 ) Also he points out the protection of constitutional freedom and he said,” The oigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the

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.

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.

Education Topeka (1937). This was a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all the lack parents

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.