Here, Martin Luther King Jr. is inferring that violence is not necessary to convey a message or fight for what one believes, and that attaining justice isn 't limited to the act of violence. King does not believe in using violence to fight violence and uses ethos to appeal to the audience: "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly" (King 65). This is similar to the saying that two wrongs don 't make a right. King is acknowledging that being violent to respond to violence is only going to cause more chaos which in terms is not right; he is thinking about consequence. Malcolm X 's speech is fueled with anger and rage.
The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people. Petition of Right is when they King become answerable to others and not just God. The King said they were only answerable to God. The divine right of the Kings was a very unpopular thing among the people because the King couldn't be wrong, but they didn't want to disobey the King or God. Article 1; Section 9 is an example of the many ways the Constitution limits our government.
There aren’t any justifications for discriminating against others based on their appearance. Johnny and his teammates created offensive stereotypical caricatures of African Americans followed by hateful comments which can’t be ignored. Mike, Adam, and Liam claim to have been joking, however, this isn’t a joking matter. They feel that their first amendment, which is the right to freedom of speech, protects them from any consequences. However, we don’t feel they should be exempt from punishment due to their freedom of speech; their posts were gravely inappropriate and offensive.
Americans in our world today believe that “ minor” laws do not mean anything, but it is the “minor” laws that lead you to be a real criminal or lawbreaker. Frank Trippett argues in his passage, A Red Light for Scofflaws, that scofflaws should be stopped and be shown that a minor law is just as important as a violent crime. The author supports his argument by giving reasoning why people would think minor laws are not a huge deal. The author’s purpose is to show the reader that any laws against littering, speeding, or noise pollution should be serious and not treated by scofflaws. The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order.
What we learn from both of these horrible events is that we should never look down upon others or accuse someone of committing an "immoral crime" without seeing or never or hearing what really happened. There's no such thing as an "immoral crime" because everyone has different moral codes, what one person thinks is horribly wrong could be totally normal to another so there's no such thing as a "moral person".
There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.
King values civil disobedience, which is the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands by nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes, but the violence created from that is not his fault. Logic is key in this situation because its obvious you shouldn't punish someone who isn't being violent. Another example is, "We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers even though it was illegal. .
The suppression of hate propaganda signifies an infringement of individual’s freedom of expression. An activity that conveys a message through non-violent forms of expression is protected under the s.2 of the Charter regardless of how offensive it is. Moreover, there was a misapplication of Charter, which made s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code to fail the proportionality test. There was no relation between the criminalization of hate speech and its suppression. Although his comments were offensive, they did not pose any threats they way violence or violence threats would have.
In this strong statement, it’s clear that being smart is seen as unacceptable and disregarded. It being seen as an insult to you if you are intelligent makes you not be intelligent, and fit into the normal, wanted lifestyle that authorities enforced. Beatty also exclaimed to Montag that “Don’t give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology” (Bradbury 58) This gives you a perspective of Philosophy. Making it seem like it’s something dangerous and undesirable. Beatty giving philosophy and sociology a bad connotation, so that Montag is persuaded not to rebel, and society is not in the wrong.
Complete isolation is not the only contributing factor to Grendel’s savage raids and aggressive behavior. The label and detestation that he receives from the humans themselves prove this. Ironically, the society who dubbed Grendel “evil” is the same society that tormented him to the point of consuming humans. The reason that Grendel is even debated to be evil is because of the humans that showed him hatred and brutality. At their first meeting, Grendel narrates, “Darts like hot coals went through my legs and arms and I howled more loudly still,” (Gardner 27).
Therefore, most of society agreed that what he did was wrong and he should be punished for it. The court had to be just and fair in their decision by interpreting the Constitution to the best of their abilities without biased though. They were making a ruling on the question, “Is the desecration of the American flag by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?” (Texas v. Johnson). The Supreme Court decided in favor of Johnson in a five to four ruling in June of 1989 (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). This maintained the decision by the appeals court, by saying that desecration of the American flag is protected by the Constitution (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica).
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of “freedom of speech” Bill of Rights, n.d., p. 1). It was designed to guarantee a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are unpopular. One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech. Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group, based on “race, ethnicity, religion,” and sexual orientation (Karman, 2016, p. 3940). Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas.
The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself. While there are many more concepts of law that the book mentions I feel that these are the most important concepts of law that somehow are the foundations of the legal system in the United
I believe freedom of speech should not be limited. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit our freedoms ,that act is truly unconstitutional. If we let them limit our freedoms then that gives them the power to limit little by little until it 's eventually all gone. The people should not be suppressed they should be allowed to put forth their opinions and speak against anything they feel isn 't right. the constitution states that you can say whatever you want as long as it does not include anything profine, or violent.
In his article, ¨So You think You Know the Second Amendment,” Jeffrey Toobin, points out the duplicity of the NRA in their quest to re-interpret the Second Amendment. Toobin emphasizes that “for more than a hundred years” the “Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well” had found that the Second Amendment “conferred on state militias a right to bear arms- but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.” Toobin poisons the well when he says, “Enter the modern National Rifle Association.” Introducing a paragraph of critical comments about the group identifies this as an unwelcome appearance of the NRA. This suggests that the NRA’s participation in the debate is likely to be unwelcome and disruptive. Another example of propaganda