What is more, the language employed in this argument is relatively neutral in that they are not emotionally charged. In addition, this argument is cogent in deductive logic. British constitutional democracy follows the rule of laws, but there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy, so it is illegal to abolish the monarchy; therefore, the UK should not abolish the monarchy. In short, the deductive logic used in this argument is convincing for the audience. However, there is no positive proof provided by the poster to justify the premise that there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy.
Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true. There is no hate speech exception to First Amendment. There are some kind of words which are not protected especially the fighting or insulting words or speech in which a person threatens to commit a crime that would result in death, serious injury, or damage is not protected by the First Amendment, instead First Amendment gives the right to fight against injustice, inequality and unfairness. For example Black Lives Matter movement, this movement has every right to express their feelings. The ways they are protesting are protected under the First Amendment.
United States proved the Court’s abridgment of First Amendment protections of political speech. Similar to the Schenck case, Mister Debs’ criminal conviction for advocating against joining the draft was upheld by the Court. In this case the Court explained that the defendant “attempted to cause and incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny and refusal of duty” to the arm forces during wartime. Mister Deb’s dissemination of the message “you need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder,” was construed as harmful speech based on the “clear and present danger test.” Justice Holmes delivered the Court’s opinion once again. Although the government has the authority to curtail free speech rights, and punish speech that incites violence and harm, the First Amendment provides far reaching boundaries for the advocacy of political
While those who weren’t were treated as enemies of the state and were subjected to military authority. However, English and American drew a line when it came to a person allegiance. In the England law people who owed allegiance to the crown was subjected to trial for treason, while those who weren’t subjected to military authority. Under the American law allegiance is owed to anyone who is within the American borders, while those whom weren’t was accompanied by military forces. During World War II the heart of the Anglo-American treason laws between civil court and military authority, unfortunately, didn’t survive since the Ex parte Quirin trial of 1942.
Shame and embarrass is not an emotion many want to experience and to avoid shame people will not commit criminal activity as they do not want to be humiliated. Shaming affect the pride of criminals and when combined with other punitve measure can be effective, shaming punish criminals psychologically. The fact is no punishment will be suitable for all individuals, as not even capital punishment is proven to be a deterrence to all. I think shaming will be especially beneficial in punishment of sexual
This novel is mainly banned in Southern and Midwestern states due to the “region’s historic problem with racism” (Halpern). One instance in the book dealing with this idea is on page 202, when a mob arrives at Tom Robinson’s cell and a member says, “You know what we want...Get aside from the door, Mr.Finch” (Lee 202). The mob that has come to the cell came to lynch Tom Robinson. This would avoid any chance of Tom Robinson not getting convicted. This reveals the mob’s racist ideology.
In the end, a majority of the judges ruled that the section 2 of the VRA is too ambiguous, thus the section cannot be applied to the felony disenfranchisement laws in New York, as the original intent of the VRA was not focused on felon disenfranchisement laws (“Key Issues in Hayden v. Pataki”). However, based on the dissenting opinions of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the second section of the Voting Rights Act clearly states that no state should be able to pass a law that emplaces a “voter qualification”, which bars a certain racial minority’s ability to vote (Goldstein
On its face, the first amendment free speech clause of the Constitution is straightforward and unqualified, providing that, “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Despite this, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that various categories of speech fall wholly outside of first amendment protection and thus merit proper censorship in appropriate cases. Among such restricted categories of expression are: advocacy intended, and likely, to incite imminent lawless action; obscenity, child pornography, true threats, defamation, fraud, and finally “fighting words”. The fighting words doctrine is a curious aberration from typical Supreme Court jurisprudence in that the Court has never upheld a single conviction on the basis of fighting words since its seminal establishment in Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire. Instead, since Chaplisnky, the Court has continually avoided finding factual support for fighting words by restoring to the overbreadth principle to strike down laws that by their construction sweep in protected speech along with proscribable speech.
This is different than lawbreaking because lawbreakers try to escape punishment and they can be violent. Civil disobedience is nonviolent and they don’t escape custody or sometimes death. Civil disobedience is a good method of getting rid of unconstitutional laws because it attracts attention and it is nonviolent. One reason that civil disobedience is a justifiable way to change unconstitutional laws is because it attracts attention in the public face. A popular sit-in was the Greensboro sit-in.
Counter subpoint. Although censoring speech is a bad idea, there are some advantages it brings. Other citizens will not be offended if someone expresses something they disagree with. Censoring speech will cause less people around the world to not get upset because of different religions. Freedom of speech would be more respectful.
• The Ohio police registered Mapp’s house without her consentient or the warrant, the suspect was not found anywhere in the property. Instead, they found “lewd and lascivious” material; something that was a violation of the law in the state of Ohio, because of this Mapp’s was charged and arrested. • In the trial the officers who searched Mapp’s house did not present evidence of the search warrant that they supposedly used during the search of the house. • Mapp’s was found guilty in the trial and sentenced from 1 to 7 years in jail. • The case was taken to the Supreme Court of Ohio were Mapp’s attorney claimed that the evidence
King was thrown in jail for disobeying a junction that his group was not allowed in. During his time there he wrote a letter to the Birmingham Jail accusing his own people. Regardless who was at fault, it was unconstitutional for the judge to tell this group of African Americans that it was illegal to speak their mind due to the first amendment. In his “I Have a Dream” speech he wrote to the white legislators justifying his actions. He understood that his group was in fact breaking the law.
King backs this up stating, “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal. "” This statement shows that something being legal or illegal doesn’t make it right or wrong. This can be applied to present day, in the news recently Gay marriage has been a huge debate, and due to a Supreme Court Decision gay marriage is now legal. According to King’s definition of just and unjust laws Gay Marriage would be a unjust law because it isn’t morally right, or follow the law of God. King makes the point that a law is just if it follows the Law of God and Unjust if it doesn’t.
In other words, the reason why we have rights are to prevent majorities from changing things. Ely brought up disparate impact, which discusses that a policy may be considered discriminatory if it has disproportionate adverse impact against any group based on race, national origin, color, religion, sex, familial status, or disability. However, Baker v Carr did not bring up adverse impacts based on those claims, so this was not a matter of federal courts in that respect either. Additionally, Ely fails to explain how a group should be worthy of protection against disparate impact. Not all minorities should be protected, for example burglars, and for that reason, his description is ambiguous.
North Carolina is an “at will” employment state and offers limited protection for all workers. State law has never included protections for workers who are LGBT. The language in HB2 makes it more clear that the state does not intend to create a new class of protections based on sexual orientation or identity, and also will not