6. After being disciplined for criticizing a customer in an email (sent from his personal email account on a company computer), Joe threatens to sue the company for invasion of privacy. Unfortunately, Joe may not know this but his expectation of privacy has no basis in law. As a matter of fact, whenever an employee uses an employer 's electronics devices for whatever purpose, whether for company or personal use, that employee automatically relinquishes his expectation of privacy per se, as established by the law.
In 1984 Republican National convention, Gregory Lee Johnson was among the people who participated in the political demonstration to protest the policies of President Ronald Reagan administration along with some of the others Dallas-based corporations. During the march through the city’s streets, Johnson burned an American flag while the other protesters was chanting for him. Nobody was injured at the protest or burning of the flag, although several eye witnesses were upset by Mr. Johnson behave, which resulted him being arrested, charged, and convicted for violating Texas statute that prevented the desecration of venerated object, such as the American flag, and State court of appeals affirmed. Nevertheless, Johnson appealed his case and argued that his actions were symbolic speech which was protected under the First Amendment; after his appeal, Texas Criminal Court of Appeals reversed it and decided that the State can’t punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. First, they believe that him burning the flag was expressive conduct which is protected
He was found guilty because of a murder case of his friend Perry. The evidence that convicted James was three hair samples that found in James 's van, the RCMP said they were Harder 's. But before James’s arrest, he committed a crime along with his friend Perry. They were running a “chop shop,” they cut apart stolen vehicles and sold the parts. In November 1989, the police arrested both James and Perry.
Because of this limitation, the government has the ability to regulate the medium of broadcasting more cautiously. The Court mentioned that having a license to broadcast only permits just that, broadcasting. The permit does not allow the licensee to dominate or exploit that frequency. The Court ruled that “there is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves...” Therefore, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not violated.
The Golden Rule, also known as the reversibility criterion by Immanuel Kant, states that we should “Don unto others as you would have them do unto you” (Thiroux and Krasemann 153). The actions by Vicksburg which were implied in the movie during the court proceedings not only showed that they went violating the Golden Rule because they do not care that their business operations endanger people. Two such examples are when the clerk of a gun company associated with the gun manufacturer did not check why a customer bought a lot of guns in such a short period of time and the gun manufacturer’s CEO claimed that due to the second amendment, anything done by gun owners are not their problem. The first example shows that negligence on the company’s part not only help with the company’s profits, but also the fact that clerk reaped the spoils by getting a chance to going on a vacation to a tropical area because of the huge amount of sales that he makes monthly (Fleder “Runaway
In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.
“Employers justify drug and alcohol testing policies by arguing that they are necessary for promoting health and safety in the workplace. Employees and unions argue that the policies either violate human rights law and/or the privacy of employees, although the infringement on privacy rights is the more prevalent basis for challenging such policies. ”This article further states that No employee can be subject to random, unannounced alcohol or drug testing, except as part of an agreed upon rehabilitative program following treatment for drug or alcohol abuse;• An employer may require a drug or alcohol test where the facts give rise to reasonable cause; and• An employer may require a drug and alcohol test as part of an investiga- tion into an accident or incident in the
In my view, guns should be banned in the United States. I simply believe there is no need for an individual with no special access or clearance to use a gun should not have one. If no ordinary citizen in America had a gun, then no-one would use the excuse "need for self-defence", this is because there are trained professionals, who 's job it is to protect others, let the police do their job and protect it 's people, not have citizens try to force themselves into the law and take matters into their own hands, it simply causes more trouble and violence for unnecessarily. I think my individual conscience let me to this opinion because of multiple reasons. These include: my surrounding environment, because in Australia since the time I was
Justice Douglas wrote the opinion. “The decision by the court was to overturn the officers ' convictions based upon the finding that they were coerced under the threat of the loss of their positions as public employees, specifically as police officers. The officers had a vested interest in their jobs, as it was their livelihood. The decision, needless to say, put public entities on notice that, although they have the right to compel employees to give a truthful statement to authorities about their actions as public servants, they could not also use the statement against them in a criminal action. The officers were entitled to immunity, as is any public servant.”
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.
“He was charged under a Texas statute that prohibited desecration of a venerated object (including...a state or national flag).” In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned the American flag as part of his demonstration against nuclear weapons. It started as an organized protest along the streets of Dallas, and ended up being an offensive act to witnesses of the scene. One could attempt to justify Gregory’s unlawful action as an expression of his First Amendment. However, as a justice on the US Supreme Court, I would have to agree with opinion B, because it appropriately supports the reason for Johnson’s conviction.
Have you ever been watching a movie or a crime T.V. show and there is a police officer arresting someone and saying something along the lines of, “You have the right to remain silent..”? Not only does that happen in shows and movies, it does happen in real life. The Miranda Rights were officially established in 1966 when Ernesto Miranda, was arrested and confessed to his crimes but his confession was later thrown out because the officer who arrested im did not read Miranda his rights. Officially, every police officer who is taking someone into custody must recite the Miranda rights. Now, does Miranda v. Arizona ensure justice and preserve liberty?
The 1st amendment is fundamental in a democracy, it gives each individual their opinion about a certain subject and gives the people the "power" to speak out when they find something wrong. For example, they can speak what they find wrong with our Representatives, without the retaliation or censorship of the government. You might think that you can go down the street and say whatever you like without anybody telling you can't. Hold your horse right there be aware that you can say what you want but there is certain things that the 1st amendment doesn't cover. The Supreme Court has some cases where it decided where the 1st amendment was appropriate and where it wasn't.
15 Armbands Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black are arguing if certain kinds of speech should or should not be prohibited in an educational setting. Justice Abe Fortas is arguing the majority opinion which says that speech should not be prohibited in an educational setting. The Justice says, “Undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right of expression,” (4). This means that just because you think something will cause a disturbance and will be bad, that does not give one the right to ban freedom of expression.
Arguments over the First Amendment and its guarantee of a freedom of speech and expression have existed since the dawn of the country, and although these discussions often happen as a result of a major policy changes or violent events involving both sides of the political spectrum, I personally feel as if the amendment should be looked in another light. Just as Ben Shapiro explores in his article titled “The End of the First Amendment,” the crisis that we are facing about our First Amendment results from the individual actors on the debate stage. Both sides are at fault here, where in some locations liberals are the one to blame and other places, conservatives. Arguments should be intellectually stimulating and conducted as a way to not only