To stay in the spirit of our visit to the Ohio Supreme Court Mr. Frase and I are asking you to look at 3 controversial Supreme Court Decisions. We would like you to answer the questions and respond to fellow students as usual. I hope you enjoy reading about these important cases. Again, answers due Sunday with responses due the following Tuesday.
Case #1 Mapp V. Ohio
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp "because she had been belligerent". Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter's bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
In the course of the basement search, police found a trunk containing "lewd and lascivious" books, pictures, and photographs. As a result, Mapp was arrested for violating Ohio's criminal law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials. At trial, the court found her guilty of the violation based on the evidence presented by the police. When Mapp's attorney questioned the officers about the alleged warrant and asked for it to be produced, the police were unable or unwilling to do so. Nonetheless, Mapp was found guilty and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio Women's Reformatory.
Upon her conviction, Mapp appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrantless search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained, the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that "a reasonable argument" could be made that the conviction should be reversed "because the 'methods' employed to obtain the [evidence]. . . were such as to 'offend' a sense of justice." But the Court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object (the trunk) rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction upheld.
Mapp appealed again to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case came down to this fundamental question: may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admissible in state criminal proceedings? The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The Fourth Amendment, however, does not define when a search or seizure is "unreasonable" nor does it specify how evidence obtained from an "unreasonable" search should be treated.
While never previously addressing the specific question presented by Mapp's case, the Supreme Court of the United States had made attempts to determine what constitutes a reasonable search and what evidence can be used in court. It first wrestled with these issues in Boyd v. United States(1886) when the Court declared that "any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own . . . private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of a crime . . . is within the condemnation of . . . [the Fourth Amendment]. Later, in Weeks v. United States (1914), the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment "put the courts of the United States and federal officials . . . under limitations . . . and forever secure[d] the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures. . . ." By including only United States and federal officials in its ruling, however, the Court still left open the question of whether evidence unlawfully seized could be used in a state criminal court proceeding. In Wolf v. Colorado (1949) the Court for the first time discussed the effect of the Fourth Amendment on the states. It concluded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated, or made applicable to the states, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. However, the ruling in Wolf also made clear that "in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." In other words, the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states.
Some states, including Ohio, felt that they should be able to make their own determination regarding the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. Nevertheless, in 1960 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Mapp's case and reconsider the decision it had reached in Wolf by determining whether the U.S. Constitution prohibited state officials from using evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decision inMapp v. Ohio was handed down in 1961.
- In your opinion, was Dollree Mapp justified in denying the police entrance to her house? Explain your reasoning.
- The Fourth Amendment states "The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated . . . " If you were a justice for the Supreme Court of Ohio what, if anything, would you find unreasonable in the search of Mapp's house? Explain.
- Why didn't the Court's decision in Wolf protect Mapp?
- The Supreme Court of the United States has to balance the protection of the rights of individuals against the protection of society. If the police had not searched Mapp's house they would never have found the trunk containing "lewd and lascivious books". With this in mind, do you think the rights of Mapp or society should have been given more weight? Why?
Case #2 Texas V. Johnson
Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, in 1984. The purpose of the demonstration was to protest policies of the Reagan Administration and of certain corporations based in Dallas. Demonstrators marched through the streets, chanted slogans, and held protests outside the offices of several corporations. At one point, another demonstrator handed Johnson an American flag.
When the demonstrators reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused the flag with kerosene and set it on fire. During the burning of the flag, the demonstrators shouted, "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you." No one was hurt or threatened with injury, but some witnesses to the flag burning said they were seriously offended. One witness picked up the flag's charred remains and buried them in his backyard.
Johnson was charged with the desecration of a venerated object, in violation of the Texas Penal Code. He was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, which let his conviction stand. He then appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which is the highest court in Texas that hears criminal cases. That court overturned his conviction saying that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances.
The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Therefore in order for a state to criminalize or regulate such conduct it would have to serve a compelling state interest that would outweigh the protection of the First Amendment. The court concluded that criminally sanctioning flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity was not a compelling enough interest to survive the constitutional challenge. It also held that while preventing breaches of the peace qualified as a compelling state interest the statute was not drawn narrowly enough to only punish those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could serve the same purpose of preventing disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.
The court said, "Recognizing that the right to differ is the centerpiece of our First Amendment freedoms . . . a government cannot mandate by fiat a feeling of unity in its citizens. Therefore that very same government cannot carve out a symbol of unity and prescribe a set of approved messages to be associated with that symbol. . . . " The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace.
The State of Texas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and, in 1988, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. In 1989, the Court handed down its decision.
- Read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What part of the Amendment is relevant to this case?
- What do you think is meant by "symbolic speech"? What are some other examples?
- What argument could you make that flag burning threatens to cause violence and therefore should be against the law?
- What arguments could you make that the First Amendment should protect flag burning?
- How should the Supreme Court of the United States decide this case? Why?
Case #3 Tinker V. DesMoines
John and Mary Beth Tinker were public school students in Des Moines, Iowa in December of 1965. As part of a group against American involvement in the Vietnam War, they decided to publicize their opposition by wearing black armbands to school. Having heard of the students' plans, the principals of the public schools in Des Moines adopted and informed students of a new policy concerning armbands. This policy stated that any student who wore an armband to school would be asked immediately to remove it. A student who refused to take off his or her armband would be suspended until agreeing to return to school without the band.
Two days later and aware of the school policy, the Tinker children and a friend decided to wear armbands to school. Upon arriving at school, the children were asked to remove their armbands. They did not remove the armbands and were subsequently suspended until they returned to school without their armbands.
The children returned to school without armbands after January 1, 1966, the date scheduled for the end of their protest. However, their fathers filed suit in U.S. District Court. This suit asked the court for a small amount of money for damages and an injunction to restrain school officials from enforcing their armband policy. Although the District Court recognized the children's First Amendment right to free speech, the court refused to issue an injunction, claiming that the school officials' actions were reasonable in light of potential disruptions from the students' protest. The Tinkers appealed their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals but were disappointed when a tie vote in that court allowed the District Court's ruling stand. As a result they decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The case came down to this fundamental question: Do the First Amendment rights of free speech extend to symbolic speech by students in public schools? And, if so, in what circumstances is that symbolic speech protected? The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment extends this rule to state governments as well, of which school systems are a part. The First Amendment, however, does not identify which kinds of speech are protected. For example, it is not clear whether hate speech against an individual or group is protected. Neither does the First Amendment specify what types of expressive actions should be considered as speech.
The Supreme Court of the United States has made many attempts to determine what types of symbolic speech are protected under the First Amendment. In 1919, the Court decided in Schenck v. United States that an individual could be punished for distributing anti-World War I pamphlets urging non-compliance with the draft because the pamphlets "create[ed] a clear and present danger that they will bring about [a] substantive evil[ . . .] Congress has a right to prevent"—draft obstruction. The Court wrestled with the issue of the right to symbolic speech again in the case of Thornhill v.Alabama (1940) when the Court ruled that picketing was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment because no clear and present danger of destruction of life or property or of breach of the peace was inherent in the action. Three years later in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), the Court extended the First Amendment protection of symbolic speech to students in public schools. In Barnette, the Court held "[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion. . . ."
In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Tinker's case and consider the constitutionality of the Des Moines principals' anti-armband policy. The Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines was handed down in 1969.
- Do you think that the school policy banning armbands was fair? Why or why not?
- The students knew they would be suspended if they wore armbands to school and chose to do so anyway. Why do you think they ignored the rule?
- The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Why do you think the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech? Are these reasons valid?
- In both Schenck and Thornhill, the Court seemed to make a rule that certain actions were guaranteed protection under the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause as long as those actions did not . . . What rule or test did the Court seem to make?
- Pretend that students in your school wanted to protest the school-wide ban on smoking. Should they legally be allowed to protest by wearing T-shirts that read "Up with 'Butts'!"? Why or why not?
1. No because the armband were not a way the kids could hurt others the did not attract too much attention and did not influence their studies.
ReplyDelete2. i think they ignored the rule because it was use less and the students may have thought the school will not have any good explanation to suspend them.
3. i Do not get the question
4.the courts rule was that only reasonable actions would be enforced not use less things
5. No because that would have an influence on others and kids would have the urge to smoke because everyone else is.
(Felix Mak)
DeleteIn response to #5:
Isn't that the point of a protest though? If an organization has a ban on something, isn't one way of protesting showing that it takes multitudes of resources to keep said ban in the books?
Take the recent protests in certain countries that will remain unnamed: Each country had a dictator that the people wanted removed, but had not spoken up before about it. When they did speak up, they proved that as long as said person remained in power, each person would get more and more uncomfortable with living there, eventually accumulating into a revolt. Some dictators were okay with this, and that is precisely what happened. The longer the revolt went on, the more people decided to take action and join the rebel side. All this because a small group of people put on a shirt that said "Up with Democracy" or some action similar to that.
Case #1 Mapp Vs. Ohio
ReplyDelete1. In my opinion Dollree Mapp was justified in denying the police entrance because she did nothing wrong for one, and second they did not have a search warrant.
2. Yes if I were a justice for the Supreme Court of Ohio I would find it unreasonable to search Mapp’s house because they had no search warrant, forced their way in and was looking around in things.
3. This is because the ruling of Wolf made it clear that "in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." So it doesn’t apply.
4. I think the rights of Mapp should have been given more weight because I think her rights were violated. They did not ask they demanded, she said, “Where’s the search warrant?” they had NONE, and then they barged in without one.
Case #2 Texas Vs. Johnson
1. The part about Freedom of Speech.
2. I think symbolic speech is an object that is used to symbolize a word or phrase. Some examples could include flicking someone off, burning a cross.
3.Some people would find it very disrespectful, hurtful and may cause violence. Like the flick of a finger is known to be disrespectful, hurtful, and angering.
4. I would make an argument about how burning a flag is a form of speech just like the burning of a cross or a flick of a finger.
I think the Supreme Court should decide not to charge him because the guy was not doing anything to cause harm to any structure or the people he was trying to get someone’s attention although he is not acting like a citizen.
Case #3 Tinker Vs. DesMoines
1. No because this is again another form of speech. The arm bands were not hurting anyone or anything. To me this was just a peaceful protest.
2.I think they ignored the rule for 1. It’s a rule that is downright dumb, 2. It was inhibiting their freedom of speech provided in the 1st amendment, and 3rd they wanted to prove a point.
3. I think they ruled that way because this was a harmless situation involving a way of voicing an opinion, and protesting the war. I think these reasons are valid.
4. I think that they may be violating dress code but again the freedom of speech amendment come into play. With that being said I don’t condone smoking but I don’t take offence to tee shirts saying “up with butts” and find it quite amusing.
Response:
DeleteChase- I didn't really think of symbolic speech as a gesture until I read your response. But actions speak louder then words, so I guess symbolic speech really could means symbols to stand in place of words.
After reading your responses on case two I realized that I agree with some of the answers that you gave. For question three you say it would be considered disrespectful if you were to burn the flag, flick someone off etc. I 100% agree with that being disrespectful. But after you gave that answer, I was surprised with the answer that you gave to number four. Because you thought it was disrespectful, I would think you would have thought that you could find a way to where it doesn’t connect with the first amendment. (Well that’s what I would do.) But I get what you are trying to say. Chase I noticed that you and other people had similar answers for case two and three. I was surprised because in my opinion I thought burning the flag was a bigger defense then wearing armbands. I am curious if you agree with me on that. If so, I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Your answers were really good and they got me to think in a different perspective.
Delete1. Dollree Mapp was justified in denying the police entrance because the Constitution said that the police cannot do a search and seizure of someone’s house without a warrant stating so.
ReplyDelete2. I would find it unreasonable that they had searched Mapp’s house because they searched her house without warrant concluded when they refused to show the warrant when asked in court.
3. The Court’s decision in Wolf didn’t protect Mapp because they had decided that the fourteenth amendment was not applicable to a state criminal case.
4. I think the rights of Mapp should have been given more weight because even though she had these books, no one knew about them. She was not hurting society as they were kept private in her own house. However, the police had forcibly entered her house on regards of being suspect of a criminal in her house and searched without a warrant and then arrested her when she was exercising her rights and used the excuse when finding the books. They disregarded her rights completely.
Case 2
1. The clause “abridging the freedom of speech’ and ‘right of the people peaceably to assemble’ are both relevant to this case. Johnson had the right to be a part of the protest that while the flag was burned, it was considered peaceful because no one got hurt. The freedom of speech is also relevant because it’s says that he has the right to speak his own thoughts and ideas, and the burning of the flag was part of free speech.
2. Symbolic speech is when people do something that exercises their right of free speech that is not just speaking it. An example is a group of people wearing something like armbands with a symbol on it, as in a case in 1965 where students at a university wore black armbands with the peace symbol. Others include having shirts with meanings and opinions.
3. The flag burning can threaten to cause violence as it can harm others, the person is waving it around with the possibility to harm others, or people might get offended and start to fight.
4. As long as it is a controlled fire that is not threatening to harm anyone or anything than the First Amendment should protect it.
5. How should the Supreme Court of the United States decide this case? Why?
The Supreme Court should have decided this case to be in Johnson’s constitutional right and freedom to burn the flag as part of a peaceful protest and as symbolic speech because it is his freedom of speech.
Case 3
1. I don’t think the school policy was fair because it was suddenly created just to prevent the two kids from doing it. Something as simple as wearing an armband probably would not have brought disruption in class, and this was probably bias coming from the principal who personally did not want the armbands and their message.
2. They ignored the rule because they thought it was unfair. They knew they had the right to wear them and were not going to cause a huge commotion. They wanted to stand up to the administration because they did not want their thoughts about the war to be oppressed.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that certain actions should have the same protection as verbal speech because people should be able to express their opinions more than just yelling at people about it. In some cases it’s better than verbal speech as it wouldn’t disturb the peace like screaming does. They give statements that are as clear as saying them. These reasons make it valid.
4. The Court made the rule that certain actions that did no show a clear and present danger of destroying property or threatening lives, it was guaranteed protection under the First Amendment.
5. Students should be legally allowed to protest by being able to wear t-shirts that express our views and the message, but then again it would be under the school’s jurisdiction because we have a business casual dress code.
Response:
DeleteElisabeth- I agree with your answer #1 for Case 3 because you brought up the fact that the rule had been made especially to prevent the kids from acting. That's exactly what I said!
Case #1
ReplyDelete1. Well, without a search warrant, I believe that in all technicality she was allowed to keep the police from her house. Then again, I don’t know all the rules involved with the capture of a dangerous individual.
2. I believe I would have found arresting Mapp before they knew anything unreasonable. However, the forcing down of the door when in the process of trying to capture a dangerous criminal… I don’t know if I would find that unreasonable.
3. The decision in the Wolf case said that the State court does not forbid the use of evidence obtained by unreasonable means. So, she would have still gone to jail for the books and pictures.
4. Well, as far as finding the books when looking for a dangerous individual, I think the safety of Society should have been weighed more heavily then Mapp’s. People may disagree with me there, of course.
Case#2
1. People have a Freedom of Speech and the right to peacefully assemble.
2. I’m not quite sure what “symbolic speech” means. It could mean using words that represent you but also represent a greater purpose, like Freedom. Or, it could be literally using symbols to represent something, like the Nazi symbol turned into something to represent hatred and fear. Or the Ying and Yang. I’m not for sure though.
3. The American Flag represents, in a way, what we are as united states. People could become extremely offended and fight protesters by saying they are treasonous to the country. It could start huge conflicts between patriotic people and those they believe are heretics in a way.
4. Burning the flag did no one physical harm, so it goes under the rights for peaceful protest. It also would fit under Freedom of Speech, since they were voicing and showing their opinions.
5. Burning the flag is a way of respectfully destroying it. So technically, the burning of the flag was actually the proper way to dispose of it, and no one was harmed. Not everyone would be happy with the decision, but maybe the protesters should be allowed to continue.
Case #3
1. In this situation, I don’t think it was fair because the rule was made especially to stop these students protest. It wasn’t a rule that had been in place before. Did it stop potential violence though? Possibly.
2. Maybe because they believed they had a right to protest. Maybe because they knew the rule had been placed specifically for them.
3. Because actions speak louder then words, and some actions are symbolic but also peaceful. These requirements seem valid to me.
4. The amendment states “Speech,” so first and foremost if someone was speaking aloud they are protected. Secondly, people are allowed “peaceful” protest, so if no one is harmed, it seems valid that this would also be allowed.
5. I suppose legally they should be allowed (unless their school doesn’t allow words on shirts) because they are exercising their rights. Although, I don’t personally think that should be allowed.
Mapp v. Ohio
ReplyDelete1. Yes because they didn’t have a warrant and if they did they were unwilling to let her see it.
2. If the police didn’t have a tip that the suspected person was in her house.
3. The ruling in Wolf , made it clear that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure.
4. Yes because without the warrant they shouldn’t have came in and if they wouldn’t have came in they would have never seen the books.
Texas v. Johnson
1. The right to petition part.
2. That something shows what they would say. When people raise a white flag.
3. The burning of the flag could spark controversy or start a riot.
4. That it was part of the petition, which is granted by the 1st amendment or that it, was a form of speech.
5. I think the Supreme Court should decide that the flag burning was protected by the constitution as long as it didn’t cause like a riot.
Tinker v. DesMoines
1. No I think they were over exaggerating. I doubt that enough people would have noticed them to cause a disruption.
2. Maybe because they really supported this protest and knew they had the freedom of speech.
3. Because they think it symbolizes speech and it wont cause a huge disruption or put people in danger. Yea these reasons are valid.
4. The Court seemed to make a rule that certain actions were guaranteed protection under the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause as long as those actions did not cause or present danger.
5. Yes as long as it doesn’t put other people in danger or cause a huge disruption in the school.
Mapp v. Ohio
ReplyDelete1. Yes, she was. Because of the 4th Amendment they needed a search warrant, so they had no right to entre her house without one.
2. Though in the search they found illegal materials, the search was unwarranted, which is unconstitutional, so therefore the officers had no right to be in Mapp’s house in the first place.
3. The decision in Wolf was that evidence found in an unconstitutional search was still viable evidence. Mapp appealed to the court to reconsider this.
4. In Mapp’s case, it is true the police had no right to entre her house since they had no warrant. However, they did find incriminating material, so since both parties violated laws, both parties should have been punished.
Texas v. Johnson
1. “Congress shall make no law…. abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
2. Symbolic speech could be a means of expressing your thoughts without actually saying something, like burning the flag. Since it’s still a form of “speech”, it’s still protected by the first amendment.
3. It’s a burning, and fire can be hard to control. It could easily have gotten out of hand and many people could have been hurt.
4. Flag burning is “symbolic speech” like I said in number two, and so the “abridging the freedom of speech” bit of the first amendment protects it there. People also have “the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” and since no one was hurt, the demonstration was a peaceable assembly.
5. I think the Supreme Court should clear Johnson. Though he, as a citizen, shouldn’t have been burning a flag, he is still protected by the first amendment.
Tinker v. DesMoines
1. No. They made the policy to prevent the protest, which would be “abridging the freedom of speech.”
2. They ignored the rule because they had the right to protest.
3. These reasons are valid because there more than just speech can be used to express one’s self, and freedom of speech is a fundament that this country is based on.
4. So long as the action did not “disturb the peace”, the Court had so far agreed that it was a form of speech that was protected in the first amendment.
5. Legally, the students should be allowed to protest because they are protected by the first amendment. However, most students are under eighteen and therefore can’t legally smoke anyway.
Kellie, I find it interesting that in #4 of the first case you said both sides should be punished because they found incriminating material. Why should she get punished for the police violating her rights?
DeleteCase #1 Mapp V. Ohio
ReplyDelete1. I believe she was justified because they clearly didn’t have a search warrant.
2. What do I consider unreasonable? I believe unreasonable means without any evidence, or specific reasons. Just because you believe or suspect isn’t reasonable, making it unreasonable.
3. Court's decision in Wolf didn’t protect Mapp because they concluded that in state crimes the fourth amendment doesn’t forbid evidence obtained by an unreasonable search. So, the evidence obtained could be used in court against Mapp.
4. In this specific cases I believe that the rights of society should have been given more weight because what Mapp had was against Ohio’s laws and people committing these crimes need to be caught to keep our society safe for everyone.
Case #2 Texas V. Johnson
1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of abridging the freedom of speech.”
2. To me symbolic speech means physically doing something to send a message. Some examples are a march, or wearing specific clothing that convey a message.
3. It could influences the people around you, to be more violent and take wrong actions. Also burning the flag is hurtful to some people. This could cause conflicts between the person burning the flag and the person that respects it.
4. RESPOND
5. I think they should allow Mr. Johnson do as he pleased, because what he did was not harmful to those around him. He was using symbolic speech to send a message.
Case #3 Tinker V. DesMoines
1. I do not think It was fair because we are entitled to freedom of speech. I think wearing a armband is considered symbolic speech which is covered by the 1st amendment.
2. I think they ignored the policy because they were heavily against American involvement in the Vietnam War, and the armbands were a form of showing what they were against.
3. I think they have ruled that certain actions should have the same protection has verbal speech because actions are expressing what you feel and some actions cause less riot then words, for example wearing the armbands. Yes I believe they are valid reasons.
4. As long as the actions did not bring danger to the people or destruction of property and the life of the citizens the actions would be guaranteed under the 1st amendment.
5. I think I students should be allowed to were the shirts because it is a way of symbolic speech. You aren’t harming anyone and you are not causing destruction to the school or the people.
Case #2: #4: Some people respect the flag dearly and see the burning of the flag as an insult.
DeleteCase 1
ReplyDelete1. Yes, I believe she was justified in denying their entrance. If they could not produce a warrant that Mapp could read for herself then they did not have permission to be there, according to the 4th amendment.
2. I would find the fact that the police didn’t explain their reason for coming into her home unreasonable. Mapp repeatedly asked for a warrant and when an officer held up a piece of paper and said it was the warrant he wouldn’t let her read it to prove that it was. Police can’t search someone’s house just because someone told them to; they need a warrant to show.
3. Wolf’s decision didn’t affect Mapp because it ruled that in a trial in a State court for a State crime the 14th amendment (due process clause) did not forbid the admittance of evidence even if it was obtained in an unwarranted search. In other words, the evidence the police got in their search still counted.
4. I think Mapp should have been given more weight. What does it matter to society if Mapp had “lewd and lascivious” books in her house? At least she wasn’t looking at the books while walking around the town square.
Case 2
1. Freedom of speech and right to assemble is relevant.
2. Symbolic speech means that the person is trying to convey a certain message through actions to the people seeing these actions. Others symbolic speech examples are saluting or waving. Both of these acts are conveying a certain message without literally speaking.
3. The flag is a symbol of our country and means VERY much to some people; some people would do anything to protect our flag. The flag being burned could cause violence because these people might get extremely upset when seeing it and act upon that emotion.
4. Flag burning is symbolic speech, which is the cousin of pure speech. The First Amendment protects the freedom of pure speech so why doesn’t it protect symbolic speech, too?
5. The Supreme Court should say Johnson is not guilty because he was exercising his freedom of speech. Yes, burning the flag may upset others, but it isn’t disrupting the peace.
Case 3
1. No, it was not fair. The students were expressing their political beliefs, and schools should not suppress this.
2. I think they ignored the rule because the school was taking advantage of its authority. If my school told me not to wear a shirt that said “Vote For Pedro” I’m pretty sure I would still wear it.
3. I think the Supreme Court has ruled that certain actions should be protected because people should have the freedom to do what they want, as long as it doesn’t threaten the safety of others. This is a valid reason.
4. The actions could not present a clear danger to anyone or anything.
5. I believe that they should be allowed to wear these shirts. This is freedom of speech and not allowing the students to wear this is disobeying the first amendment.
Elsa: For question two in case two you gave examples as saluting or waving. I didn’t even think of those. I thought those were good examples and it got me to thinking about my examples, and if my examples were okay for the question. I also agree with your answer to number three on case two. My answer related to people in the war and how they would do whatever it takes to protect the flag, and I think that is sort of what you are saying/implying. Correct me if I am wrong. For your answer to number four on case two, I would maybe debate that with you. Although you make a valid point that’s not what I believe so I would argue it. You seem to have taken that question in a literal way, when I interpreted it in a personal way. Other than that I liked your answers, and some of them got me to think in a different way!
DeleteMapp v. Ohio
ReplyDelete1. The police weren’t justified into breaking into Dollree Mapp’s home. They didn’t have a properly issued warrant to give them the right to break in.
2. Unless there was a reason to believe that there were bombs in the trunk, I would want to know why they searched it if they were looking for a suspect.
3. The Supreme Court’s decision in Wolf v. Colorado dealt with the due process clause, but Mapp v. Ohio was about the exclusionary rule the protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
4. I’d favor Mapp’s rights. I don’t think the police would have opened the trunk expecting to find the bomber, and even then I disagree with a ban on obscene materials. The police also had a few hours to get more officers, so they could have taken that time to get a warrant as well.
Texas v. Johnson
1. The relevant part of the First Amendment maintains freedom of speech.
2. Symbolic speech is an idea expressed without using words. An example could be donating to a political campaign (as in Citizens United), or wearing something with a message or symbol on it.
3. Flag burning elicits strong opinions from people, who might then start acting violently. You could argue that the government should convict Johnson, since the protest could have easily escalated into something more violent.
4. You could say that burning a flag was a peaceful protest and a form of speech protected under the First Amendment, and that it’s not Johnson’s fault if other people react violently to what he did. Even if it’s offensive, he still had the right to protest.
5. The Supreme Court should rule in favor of Johnson. He is not responsible for how other people react to his protest, and while there is the Ninth Amendment, nobody should have the right to not be offended. Being offended isn’t specific enough to enforce, and the right to it could easily be defeated. Someone could claim that they’re offended that other people have the right to not be offended.
Tinker v. Des Moines
1. The policy was not fair. The school officials only banned armbands in response to the protest. Even if the protest was disruptive, they still have the authority to deal with the protest on its own instead of trying to stop it altogether.
2. The students had strong enough beliefs that they didn’t care about being suspended, and probably thought that it would strengthen their protest if they were suspended.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that actions can express ideas, making them valid speech protected under the First Amendment. I agree, as long as nobody else is being harmed or their rights are infringed.
4. In both cases, the Supreme Court okayed certain actions as long as they didn’t create a “clear and present danger.”
5. Legally, a protest by wearing those shirts would be allowed. Some schools have dress codes that prohibit all T-shirts or clothes with writing, but the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on their constitutionality.
(Felix Mak)
DeleteCase #2, Question #1:
That's a lot of the First Amendment. Looking at it, that is an entire half of the amendment, with the other half involving freedom of religion, which is almost the same thing. Is there some sort of way that you could narrow it down?
Case One:
ReplyDelete1. In my opinion Dollree Mapp decision was justified. The reason I say that, is because the police had absolutely no right to go in the woman’s home, because they didn’t have a search warrant.
2. If I were a justice of the Supreme Court, I would find all of the evidence gathered with the false search warrant as unreasonable. I would also find the police taking the search warrant out of Dollree’s hands unreasonable. The reason I say all the evidence is unreasonable is because the police didn’t have a search warrant to take Mapp’s possessions. I would also have found the police taking the false search warrant out of her hands unreasonable because Mapp’s has a right to look over the search warrant.
3. In the Wolf case it was made clear through the 14th amendment that evidence did not have to be thrown out in an unlawful search. Therefore the evidence that got her a conviction was still valid.
4. In my opinion the Supreme Court should weigh more to the society’s protection, over Mapp’s protection. In this case the bigger picture is more important.
Case Two:
1. The part of the first amendment that is relevant to this case is freedom of speech.
2. I think symbolic speech is something that is symbolizing what you are trying to get across to people (what you are trying to say). Examples of this would be like, people writing love on their arms to show that people care about those who inflict harm on themselves, or maybe when people put tape over there mouth to symbolize prolife.
3. Burning the flag could cause a war because most people in the military would be highly offended, also setting a flag on fire, could burn someone and that is dangerous. (Don’t mess with fire)
4. Burning the flag is like freedom of speech its saying something without using words. For example: putting tape over your mouth is stating that you believe in prolife, but you’re not really stating that in words. People are able to interpret what you are trying to say.
5. Depending on how Johnson burned the flag, I do believe he should receive some sort of penalty due to the potential dangers that he could have caused. Under the First amendment he is however protected based on his statement made by burning the flag.
Case Three:
1. I do not think that banning the armbands was fair, because it was basically taking the freedom of speech, protest, etc. however it was in a learning environment and that could cause distraction. So I am still on a thin line about this question.
2. I think they did this because they thought they had a freedom of speech, but I also think that they did this because they wanted to show their peers that its cool to stand up for what you believe in, even if you get in trouble.
3. I think they ruled this way because the students were showing an act in protest at a young age, but also doing it in a way that was not harmful. I do not believe these reasons are not valid because although they were meant to be a non-harmful protest, you never know what to expect in a school environment.
4. The court seemed to have made a rule that certain actions are protected under the first amendment as long as they don’t cause any danger.
5. I believe students should be allowed to protest non-smoking, but I do not believe they should be permitted to wear a shirt that reads “up with butts”. I say this because protesting is fine and all, but as soon as you have a saying as that one, people may start to get offended. In my opinion the saying is inappropriate and schools have a rule against inappropriate clothes. So they can protest but I don’t think it is a good idea to wear a shirt like that.
Case 2 Question 2: Your examples of To Write Love On Her Arms and pro-life movements are awesome. I believe in both of these things and they are really important to me. These are some of the best ways to exemplify symbolic speech.
DeleteCase 1
ReplyDelete1.yes because they didnt show her a search warrant so she is justified in her denial
2.I would find it unreasonable thr fact that they searched it even when she asked for a warrant and didnt let her read the paper they claimed was a warrant
3.It didnt protect her beacause evidence found without a warrant can be used as valid
4.Yes beacause they went into her house and violeted her rights by searching her house with no warrant
Case 2
1.Freedom of speech
2.It means speech delievered by actions without speaking out such as salutions which gives out the meaning of respect
3.You are allowed to say what you want unless it distrubs the pubic safety and burning the flag can cause violence among the people and rise trouble
4. That what he did is symbolic speech and it should protect symbolic speech the same way it protects regular speech
5.They should not charge him because what he did was a symbolic speech and its the same thing as freedom of speech so,he shouldnt be charged
Case3
1.No because they were not harming anyone and its freedom of speech
2.Because they wanted to show them they can wear what they want
3.They should because i can say something and at the same time delevere the same message with my actions
4. That as long as they didnt cause any harm in the public safety
5. Yes because it is not harming the school environment and stopping the learning at the same time delivering their message silently.
Chase: After reading your responses on case two I realized that I agree with some of the answers that you gave. For question three you say it would be considered disrespectful if you were to burn the flag, flick someone off etc. I 100% agree with that being disrespectful. But after you gave that answer, I was surprised with the answer that you gave to number four. Because you thought it was disrespectful, I would think you would have thought that you could find a way to where it doesn’t connect with the first amendment. (Well that’s what I would do.) But I get what you are trying to say. Chase I noticed that you and other people had similar answers for case two and three. I was surprised because in my opinion I thought burning the flag was a bigger defense then wearing armbands. I am curious if you agree with me on that. If so, I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Your answers were really good and they got me to think in a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteElsa: For question two in case two you gave examples as saluting or waving. I didn’t even think of those. I thought those were good examples and it got me to thinking about my examples, and if my examples were okay for the question. I also agree with your answer to number three on case two. My answer related to people in the war and how they would do whatever it takes to protect the flag, and I think that is sort of what you are saying/implying. Correct me if I am wrong. For your answer to number four on case two, I would maybe debate that with you. Although you make a valid point that’s not what I believe so I would argue it. You seem to have taken that question in a literal way, when I interpreted it in a personal way. Other than that I liked your answers, and some of them got me to think in a different way!
Case #1
ReplyDelete1.) Yes, I believe that Mapp was justified in denying the police entering her house because she was protecting her fourth amendment rights. The police were violating the Fourth Amendment
2.) I would find the fact that the police just barged into Mapp's house unreasonable altogether. I also find it unreasonable how the police didn't even have an accurate warrant.
3.) The Court's decision in Wolf didn't protect Mapp because they basically said that it didn't apply to her.
4.) I believe that the rights of Mapp should have been given more weight because even though it's bad how she had a trunk containing "lewd and lascivious books", her rights should still be protected. If everybody's rights just got looked over and didn't really matter, then there would be no point in the amendments.
Case #2
1.) "Freedom of Speech"
2.) Symbolic speech is a type of speech where you're not technically talking, like through your mouth, but talking in your actions.
3.) Burning a flag could definitely trigger somebody that genuinely loves their country, which could lead to violence between the citizen and the flag burner.
4.) using freedom of speech/symbolic speech. The first Amendment protects this right, therefore you should be allowed to burn a flag.
5.) I think that the Supreme Court should keep in mind that every citizen in the United States has their rights, including freedom of speech. If that person feels that strongly about burning an American flag, then let him be, even though not everybody is going to agree with that person.
Case #3
1.) I don't think that the school's policy was fair because they were violating the first amendment right.
2.) I think that they still ignored the rule because they feel so strongly against American Involvement in the Vietnam War.
3.) I think the Supreme Court ruled that certain actions should have the same protections as verbal speech because both types or speech are a way for other people to know what you are thinking about, preferably something that is very important to you. These reasons are valid because both are ways of expression.
4.) Certain actions are protected when they don't involve putting anybody/thing in danger.
5.) The kids should legally be aloud to protest because the First Amendment gives you freedom of speech and those students would be using symbolic speech, therefore they can't be told to not wear those shirts anymore because then the school would be violating their first amendment right.
I agree with what you said about Mapp's rights getting trampled, but what if they had found she was a murderer or something serious like that? Would it be worth it then?
DeleteCase #1:
ReplyDelete1. No, I don’t think that she was wrong for not letting the police enter her home. In the Constitution it says to enter a person home or any private place, they have a warrant.
2. No, it would not unreasonable to search through Dollree Mapps house because she was accused of hiding a bomb. But I still think that they need a warrant because that what the fourth amendment states.
3. It didn’t protect Mapps, because the police had received information that she had a bomb in her house. So they had evidence to back them up, so that they didn’t need a warrant.
4. The police didn’t have right the enter Mapps house because they didn’t have a warrant. But since she was caught with illegal stuff it should carry some weight.
Case #2:
1. The first amendment of the U.S Constitution is relevant to this case because Gregory Lee Johnson protested policies of the Reagan Administration and corporation’s bases in Dallas.
2. A speech that had a meaning behind it.
3. It could have cause violence’s because people have reacted in bad way and started to fight, it have burn down building, and cause dangerous riots.
4. I don’t there is nothing to protect the burning of the flag. It is just something symbolic that people do.
5. They really can’t do anything about it, because of the first amendment.
Case #3:
1. No, It was not fair because it was there way have freedom of speech.
2. I think that they ignored the rule because it was a cause he cared about.
3. These reasons are valid because there are different ways to show freedom of speech. You can show freedom of speech by speaking or by your actions.
4. They said that because there was not clear danger of harming someone’s life or property, that they had protection.
5. I think they should because it the there given right to do so.
I agree that that the first amendment protects Tinker in Case 3, but why do you think that Constitutional rights seem to disappear in cases involving things that happen in school?
Delete1. Yes I believe that she was because they didn’t have the right to enter her house, even though she could have possibly been hiding a bomber, without the correct paper work.
ReplyDelete2. Yes I do find the search unreasonable because not only did they refuse to show her a warrant, but they handcuffed her when she asked for one. They also refused to show the warrant during court.
3. She wasn’t protected because she was tried by a state court, and they said that it didn’t apply to state criminal cases.
4. I think the rights of the society should have more weight because she could have been hiding a bomber who was dangerous to society.
1. Freedom of speech and right to petition
2. Symbolic speech is a way to express yourself without the use of spoken words or written words. Some people use different hand signs to represent where there from as a way of symbolic speech.
3. Bystanders could take offense to the flag burning and start a fight with the person burning the flag.
4. That it’s a way to express yourself which would be protected by the freedom speech and it isn’t harming anyone so its protected by the right to petition
5. I believe that since he wasn’t harming anyone in the process so his rights should be protected by the First Amendment.
1. No, because it didn’t interrupt the studies of others or they and it weren’t causing harm to other students.
2. They ignored it because they either didn’t take the rule seriously or the wanted show that they really cared about the issues and weren’t afraid of the punishment
3. The supreme court made a rule that stated freedom of speech incorporates actions because it is an expression of oneself
4. The court believed that certain actions, spoken or not, are protected under the first amendment
5. Yes, because under the first amendment they have the freedom of speech.
Good answers ours were alike
DeleteCase 1
ReplyDelete1. No she wasn't wrong for not letting the Police enter your house, even if you have incriminating evidence in your house such as a bomb or drugs they are not allowed to enter unless they have a warrant saying so.
2. If I was a justice I would find it unreasonable that they searched the house but I do not think I would throw out the evidence. I find it very foolish how we seem to protect the criminal more then the general public.
3. Since this was a state court they deemed that the fourth amendment did not protect Mapp even though it was found under a search and seizure without a warrant.
4. We should always put the good of the society over the 'good' of one person. She could have been hiding a bomber or anything and if they had not searched her place many people could have died.
Case 2
1. The first amendment says we have a right to free speech and a right to a peaceful assembly which, while they were burning the flag (some might find this offensive) it is not violent and thus does not break the first amendment which means they should be allowed to do this.
2. Symbolic speech is more talking through your actions then your mouth. Like burning the flag, or standing in front of the tank in People's square. You are not saying anything with your words, but you are definitely saying something with your actions. It connects to the phrase action speak louder then words.
3.As mentioned in one of my previous answer people might take offense to the burning of the flag, they could then start a fight and things would quickly spiral out of control.
4. The first amendment says we have the right to a peaceful protest which they were doing, no one was getting hurt, no one was inciting violence.
5. I think the supreme court really could not do anything against them since they should be protected by the first amendment. It was a peaceful protest which they have the right to.
Case 3
1. I don't think the School should have banned them, they weren't causing problems, they weren't hurting people, distracting people, there was no reason to ban them.
2. When you care for something you stand up for it no matter what. That is why I believe the students stood up against this rule because they cared about it, and if one of them was suspended they most likely would by a martyr to their cause.
3. The supreme court most likely ruled this because of symbolic speech. They wanted to protect certain actions that speak louder then words.
4. As long as they are speaking (and not breaking other crimes) they are protected by the first amendment no matter what they say. Also as long as the protests are PEACEFUL then they are protected.
5. Yes, because of the first amendment, freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protest.
Very informative answers
DeleteCase 1
ReplyDelete1. In my opinion the random search of Dollree Mapp’s home was illegal because the police didn’t have a warrant and she denied entry so what ever the collected should be terminated and should be considered evidence.
2. As a Supreme Court of Ohio justice I would find it unreasonable to search here home because applying the 4th amendment it makes it illegal without a warrant. The 4th Amendment was made to protect the privacy of peoples home and to have a barrier between citizens and over excessive cops.
3. A similar case to Mapp’s is Wolf vs. Colorado case because they both were involving the 4th amendment. This didn’t effect Mapp’s case because it was about the exclusionary rule the protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
4. Yes because if our rights are light then there will be more power to people in higher position. Our rights need more weight because if we don’t there is really know point in the 4th amendment and police will be able to get away with this which is unfair and too much.
Case 2
1. Freedom of Speech and the right to peacefully assemble.
2. A symbolic speech is a nonverbal gesture and actions that are meant to communicate a message. An example of symbolic speech is the burning of the flag.
3. An argument to make about this whole epidemic is to band the burning of flags because it will cause violence between those people and active citizens, patriots and war veterans. This will cause fights all over and put neutral’s in danger
4. I think that banning flag burning is reasonable but I don’t think the 1st amendment should protect that type of action because that is diminishing the rights of freedom of speech.
5. The Supreme Court of the United States should terminate the case because the people exercised his rights and he shouldn’t be held accountable for his actions if it’s legal.
Case 3
1. Banning armband wasn’t fair because it wasn’t a problem they made it one. The student wore them to show what they stand for through symbolic speech.
2. The students ignored the rule because they didn’t find anything wrong with it and the school shouldn’t be able to stop the student’s belief so they refused to follow the rules.
3. Freedom of verbal speech and symbolic speech should have the same protection because they are the same in many ways its just one stands out more than the other.
4. The rule Courts made about verbal and symbolic speech is there is freedom with both but the only way your actions or words are protected by 1st amendment are actions and words that has no clear and present danger of destruction of life or property or of breach of the peace was inherent in the action.
5. I think we should have the freedom to do that because we have the rights to and there is now rule in are school that says we can’t.
1. To answer this question accurately, a little more information is needed. If we are to assume that the person that was supposedly on the property (the bomber) was a current danger (like, if they were in possession of a bomb), then no, Dollree Mapp wasn't justified in keeping the police out of her house. Under the 4th amendment, exigent circumstances allow the police to search a property if they believe that lives or the property are in danger. However, if this person was not assumed to be currently dangerous, then yes. She was justified.
ReplyDelete2. If I were a judge, I would find the fact that the police refused to show Mapp their "warrant" unreasonable. I am unsure about the seizure of the "lewd and lascivious" material. If the officers were on the property due to exigent circumstances or if they did have a legal warrant, then their seizure of the materials is not unconstitutional.
3. Wolf v. Colorado did no protect Mapp because in this case the court decided that the 14th amendment wasn't applicable for criminal cases in state court.
4. In this case, Mapp's case should have been given more weight. I think this mostly because of how loose the police's evidence was. Their warrant was never authenticated.
1. This is covered under the right for the people to peaceably assemble and free speech.
2. Symbolic speech is expressing the right to free speech, while maybe not directly expressing your point. For example, burning the flag could be a symbol for what is happening to the country, or to show disappointment in the country.
3. Arguments for this could be that burning the flag is 1) hazardous, and 2) could create a social tension, as it is publicly disgracing the country.
4. If this question is asking, What arguments can you make to protect the right to burn the flag under the 1st amendment: allowing burning of the flag protects freedom of speech, as the flag is only a symbol, and flags become personal property after their are purchased, and the buyer has the right to do what they wish with the flag.
5. The Supreme Court should decide this case in Johnson's favor. Deciding in his favor would protect his right to free speech.
1. The school policy banning armbands was not fair. It disabled the right to free speech.
2. I think that they ignored the rule because they knew the rule took away their rights. They knew that wearing armbands was a peaceful protest, and if they were denied this right, they would be being denied constitutional rights.
3. I think the supreme court ruled that certain actions can be protected under free speech because free speech is an expression, and symbolic actions are too. They agreed that they cannot abridge freedom of speech, and that no political figure can. I believe that these reasons are valid, because saying that someone can edit our most basic right, is vesting too much power in one person.
4. As long as the actions did not disturb the peace, then they may be covered anther the first amendment right to free speech.
5. A school should be allowed to protest this way. It is symbolic, but it is a peaceful protest. The word 'butts' is not harmful in today's society.
Helena- I didn't think that the problem asked in the very last question was the use of the word 'butts'. I agree, but you never know who will be offended.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMapp V. Ohio
ReplyDelete1. I believe Mapp was justified in denying the police entry without a warrant. I believe that the police should have a warrant and must show you that warrant if they want to search your house or other location.
2. I would find the lack of a warrant to make the search unreasonable. Especially, later in court, when they could not show a warrant. If it should be shown anywhere, it should be shown the polices’ defense in court.
3. Because in the Wolf case, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence found in an unreasonable search could be used.
4. I think that an individual’s rights must be protected. I also think that the problem would not have aroused in the first place if the police had had a search warrant. Mapp was smart by immediately calling the lawyer and getting advice.
Texas V. Johnson
1. This applies to freedom of speech. Burning the flag was a statement.
2. Symbolic speech would be an action that has a meaning behind it. He burned the flag to protest the United States and that message was clear.
3. You could make the argument that it is dangerous to burn a flag in a crowded area because of the dangers of fire.
4. This case is very much of symbolic speech. Johnson was trying to send a message to the world and, more importantly, to the government that he was not going to stand for injustice and the actions of these corporations.
5. The Supreme Court should decide in the favor on Johnson because witnesses said there was no danger of fire and all he was doing was making a point.
Tinker V. DesMoines
1. The policy was unfair because it removed the students’ freedom of speech. The armbands were not disruptive, or only so much as a necklace or other article of clothing might be.
2. I believe that they ignored the rules because they knew they were right. They should have the right to protest if they want.
3. They ruled that some actions count as speech because they are done soley to make a point and get a message across. This reason is valid because some of the actions of people are designed as a form of speech. “Actions speak louder than words”
4. The court needed to know if the actions presented a threat. If they did, they could be stopped, but if not, than it is just a form of speech.
5. Yes because it is a peaceful protest. But there is limited value in the action. It is a law on underage people. That is not a school policy. Yes, they should be able to wear the shirts, but in a school is pointless because it might be a school rule, but it is also the law, so protests should be made in front of political offices.
Alexis, I disagree with your last response. You say "unless their school doesn’t allow words on shirts". I think that it should be allowed anyway, because it is still a peaceful protest.
ReplyDeleteTennison, In your case 3, number 1, I agree with your statement that they should be allowed, but they might be a distraction. I have seen students given those giveaway armbands and they cause a lot of distractions.
Case #1
ReplyDelete1. I think that she did have the right to ask the officers why they where wanting to come into her house but once they explained themselves and why they wanted to go into her home she should have let them continue in to her home instead of fighting them about it.
2. If i was a justices i would at first take in place the fourth Amendment and how it does state that you are not allowed to go into there house but i would also take into case that they did find things that where against the law or that made them guilty in another case.
3. Because they did violate the fourth amendment so that is why he was protecting Mapp because the Amendments are to be respected at all times no matter what the case.
4. I think that is should be a case by case decision because you we must respect peoples right but at the same time if we do so it might bring harm to society more than the good we did by respecting there rights.
Case#2
1.The first amendment respects the freedom of religion and speech and freedom . So by burning the flag and saying what he did he is technically allowed to say that and express his opinion because it his freedom.
2. I think when they say that they means some things that a person could say are more important then other such a disrespecting the country and the flag. as well as another example would be disrespecting the president or the government.
3.He did pour gas onto an object then lit it on fire there for he could have lit things surrounding him on fire as well there for endangering other people or objects around him. It is a very unsafe thing to do and could promote violence.
4.Becuase the flag represents such an important part of our country and as well as our freedom it could be considered the largest way of disrespecting our country as well as what we stand for.
5. I think because of the first Amendment he could not be charged with anything for what he said about America of the flag but he could be charge with the actually burning of the flag as violence and putting others in danger.
Case#3
1. I think that it was fair i consider is a dress code and most schools do have dress codes to fallow and agree the priceable with making the rule.
2.I think tab they continued to wear them because they wanted to make there point clear and one way of making a point if creating commotion and attention. So they where able to probably let the whole school what they had done and they just wanted to get here point across.
3.I think that the reason is valid because yes we do have the freedom of speech but i believe that some things should be off limits, Because somethings can be very disrespectful to no only a community but our country.
4. I think that they where trying to make a valid point but they also have to understand that the took place in a school building where many things change once they do happen because the school does have more authority over the children.
5. I think that there should be other ways for them to communicate there opinions to the teachers and staff so that they beth there opinions without offending or breaking any rules, Such as our town hall meetings.
Case 2 Question 4: I agree with you when you say burning the flag is the largest way to disrespect our country. If that man wanted to say it was his "right" to burn the flag, how much sense does it make for him to disrespect our country, but still expect to earn our rights stated in the Constitution?
Delete@ivanna: i agree with you on number 1 of mapp v. Ohio. i said the exact same.
ReplyDelete@tennison: i agree with your answer to number 5 of tinker v. desmoines. but there's always the possibility it wont be peaceful and could cause a disruption in school
Tennison - I like how you used Tank Man as an example of symbolic speech. I would point out that he did climb on top of the first tank in the convoy and talked to the soldier inside, so there was some regular speech too.
ReplyDeleteRebekah - You talked about whether somebody should decide to wear a shirt that says, "Up with Butts." I agree that it might not be a good idea to wear that shirt, but what do you think about legality of wearing it?
Still Felix Mak, for those wondering
ReplyDeleteCase #1:
1) Yes she was, as the 4th amendment protected her from unwarranted search and seizure.
2) I would find the fact that the police did not find a warrant more than a little bit suspicious, and thus unreasonable.
3) Because Wolf v. Colorado was a more federal case, while Mapp v. Ohio was more under a State's jurisdiction.
4) The 4th amendment protects individuals from unjustified search and seizure.
Case #2:
1) Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2) Symbolic speech, like sign language, involves movements and demonstrations that may or may not involve speaking. Examples inculde Flag-Burning, Tombstone-Knocking-Over, Tombstone-Repairing, etc.
3) Flag-Burning sounds like it is dangerously close to anarchy, and is to be avoided.
4) The Flag is more than just a flag. The Flag is a symbol of the courage through our hardships, and our humbleness through our successes. Burning it destroys these values, in theory.
5) The Supreme Court should, in a 5-4 decision, rule in the favor of Johnson, as while there was no "speech" in "free speech," the court had previously ruled that non-speech was still speech, and use history as their guide.
Case #3:
1) No, because it detracts freedom of speech, or non-speech, as it were.
2) Because they believed in their rights. They being kids, also could have thought "The law is in the books, but it would take all of their resources to enforce it."
3) Partly because there are people who speak without words (sign language), as well as people who would prefer to speak with actions rather than with words. And yes, they are valid.
4) The test seems to be that if an action bothers someone more than the bounds of predjudice, then it is okay, because that is what is designed to happen with protest. If it bothers a group of people, that is still within the designs of protest. However, if it discomforts everyone, excluding the protestors, then it is less "speaking out" than "disturbing the peace."
5) In my school, wearing T-Shirts is illegal period, so even if it is protesting a cause, my school would argue there are better ways of protesting a non-issue (high schoolers smoking?) than breaking a rule that the students willing allow when they enter the premises, and continue to vote into place year after year.
Case 1
ReplyDelete1. Yes she was. The police did not have a search warrant. If we do not protect our freedom then our rights will be taken away. I think that since there was no warrant and fake one was presented later then she was completely within her rights to deny the police entry.
2. I would find forcing entrance, searching without the proper documentation, and searching without probable cause. These are all basic rights that we have, by breaking them then you are preforming an illegal search and seizure.
3. The reason Wolf did not protect Mapp was that the court ruled that "in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." This means that since Mapp was a state case admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure was acceptable.
4. Mapp, because the content of the trunk was not going to hurt anyone. If they were dangerous objects then the issue would be much harder to decide. But, the books were not going to kill anyone and therefore I think Mapp.
Case 2
1. Freedom of Speech and Expression. These two sections protect the right to protest.
2. Symbolic speech is when actions are used to convey a message or statement. It is protected under the first amendment. He used the burning of the flag to symbolize the burning of America. Two other cases that this issue was used in were Tinker v. Des Moines and United States v. O'Brien.
3. It could cause a riot or it could create social tension. Another issue that is used a lot is that burning the flag was offensive and that hurt me.
4. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, it wasn’t hurting anyone
5. Since this was a case of symbolic speech and that is covered by the first amendment they should vote that the man did nothing wrong.
Case 3
1. It was not fair because it intruded on the kids first amendment rights. Not only that, but, the bands did not present any significant danger.
2. I think they ignored the rule in protest. They knew their rights and knew that this new rule was unfair.
3. The freedom of speech is that of expression; of saying what you want. Symbols are just another way to express that. I think this is a very valid reason to have symbolic speech be protected.
4. As long as they are not breaking any crimes, you can say what you want. Also, you can protest as long as the protests are peaceful.
5. Yes they should because it is freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful protests, which is guaranteed to us by the first amendment.
Audra-I think your answer 5 case 3 struck a very good balance between the issues of the students and those of the teachers. But I think your point might have just been a little bit stronger if you had mentioned freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteAlexis-Interesting answer to answer 5 case 3. But I would have liked to hear why you think that they shouldn't be allowed personally.
Mapp vs Ohio
ReplyDelete1. I believe she was justified in denying the police entry. According to the Constitution to search a house, property, or person you require a warrant. Since the police did not have or prove they had a warrant the woman had the right to not let them into her house.
2. The lack of a warrant made the search unreasonable. They could not even provide proof that they had a warrant in court. Since a warrant is necessary to search a home, searching a home without a warrant is unreasonable.
3. Wolf’s case ruling didn’t protect Matt since it concluded that the 14th amendment made applicable to the states the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution but also made clear that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the states.
4. I think both rights should have held equal weight. I think Mapp should ot have been prosecuted however since the proof used against her was taken illegally though. If to convict someone and give them just desserts we must break our own imposed rules thereby being unjust, then our rules and justice mean nothing. We must play by the rules else nothing we do is justified.
Texas vs Johnson
1. The 1rst amendment gives us the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Though Johnson was entitled to his statement by the 1st amendment it could be argued that burning the flag could start violence therefore violating it.
2. Symbolic speech is an action that has an intended meaning behind it. He burned the flag to protest the United States and that message was clear. Other examples include the swastika, a heart, the cross, and art.
3. You could make the argument that it is dangerous to burn a flag in a crowded area for public safety or property and that burning the flag could fuel violence by fueling the crowd with vigor and other feelings and impulses that might turn them lose acting out of hand.
4. The argument would be since all he was doing was trying to make a statement while peacefully assembled while addressing government grievances that this man was protected by the amendment.
5. The Supreme Court should decide in the favor of the state since the state can define was provocative action might prove to endanger the public or turn an assembly violent.
Tinker vs Des Moines
1. The policy was unfair because it removed the students’ freedom of speech. But the school had the right to do this seeing as schools have special rights and are special under the law, so therefore they could make dress code so armbands were not allowed even if there were no viable reason to do so.
2.They ignored the rule because they fought for what they believed in and a rule would not stop them from expressing their opinions and protesting the war.
3. Since speech means the act of conveying meaning. This can be done through language or through actions. I think this reason is valid.
4. The court needed to know if the actions presented or were a threat to public safety or property. If they did, they could be stopped, if not, than it was protected under the 1st amendment.
5. Yes because it is a peaceful protest and expression, both which are protected by the 1st amendment. This is assuming that the shirts obeyed dress code however. If they broke dress code then legally the students should not be allowed to wear the shirt because of the special privileges schools get under law.
Tennison: You say that you do not understand why our government protects criminals, this is why. If it were the other way around conviction would be inevitable causing jail rates to increase putting a strain on the economy. It must be that we prove the criminal guilty not innocent since otherwise it is to hard to prove innocents so many would unjustly be punished. Also in the case you are talking about see my answer concerning the question in question.
ReplyDeleteRiley: Any thing can hurt or kill someone. The disturbing images found could mentally or emotionally hurt someone causing/ manifesting in physical pain (many times self induced) and the paper could papercut someone. So your reason seems a bit unviable in my opinion.
@Alexis #3 Q:5 i think in my opinion they should be allowed to wear the tees because it freedom of speech. But could you explain why you personally don't think that they should be allowed?
ReplyDelete@Rebekahh - Response to mine - Well as to your first statement that i could respond to i would say that i believe that it is very disrespect full to burn a flag in that fashion and would feel offended but i would not say that they don't have the right to do so. And as to the curiosity of whether or not i agree with you is yes i agree with you but i think i answered most of that in the sentence before. I just have one quote from Benjamin Franklin:
Without the freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.
Riley Patrick: I agree with your answer for Case #2, #4. Our thoughts were exactly the same.
ReplyDeleteHelena R: I agreed with your answer for Case #3,#1.
Alex W i agree with you on the last question on case three because it is indeed a peaceful protest but i didnt think of the second part about the dresscode and now that i think of it i agree with you.
ReplyDeleteRiley: question three of case two is very true of what you said and i believe it should be protected too.
Map V. Ohio
ReplyDelete1. Yes, she was justified in denying police access to her house because the fourth amendment protects her from unreasonable/unwarranted search and seizures.
2. If I were a justice for the Supreme Court of Ohio I would find the fact that the police did not find a warrant suspicious especially later during court when that could not show a warrant more than unreasonable.
3. The courts decision in Wolf did not protect Mapp because in the wolf case the Supreme Court ruled that evidence found in an unreasonable search could be used.
4. Yes, because they had no warrant and the fourth amendment protects individuals from unjustified search and seizure.
Texas V. Johnson
1. Freedom of speech and expression relates to this case because burning the flag was kind of like making a statement and the first amendment protects those rights.
2. I think symbolic speech means like an action that has a meaning behind it. An example would be how he burned the flag to protest for what he believed in and the flag is symbolic to the U.S for freedom and religion etc.
3. Flag burning could create a lot of mayhem because it is symbolic for what a lot of people believe in.
4. Burning the flag destroys what is symbolizes. The flag represents freedom, religion, courage and success. If the flag is burned it will have no value and could cause a disruption in society because of citizens beliefs.
5. I think they should decide this case in favor of Johnson because according to the first amendment he has freedom of speech and witness said there was no danger in the fire so really he did nothing wrong he was just making a point.
Tinker V. DesMoines
1. No, I do not think the policy was fair because it detracts freedom speech from the first amendment.
2. I think the kids wore armbands anyway because it was something they all believed in and they thought they should be entitled to their rights.
3. They should have the same protection as verbal speech because some people believe that actions speak louder than words or people won’t listen so yes I think they are valid.
4. I think people should be able to say what they want as long as they are not breaking any rules and committing crimes a friendly/peaceful protest cant hurt.
5. I think if enough kids believe in it and they all wear their T-Shirts it wouldn’t be much the teachers would really be able to do. However, I think they should be legally allowed to protest but since T-Shirts are against our school dress code it would be illegal to wear the shirt.
Alex W: I like your response to case three on the last question. I agree with the first apart about the peaceful protest. I also, like your train of bought about the dress code because I didn't think of it that way at first. Your response to this question was good.
ReplyDeleteTennison: I agree with your statement in your case three number one. I agree with your statement because I see how you were thinking and the armbands could be a distraction to some people. You did a great job with your responses to the blog.
Ashlee: I completely agree with your case 3 question 3. I agree because some do think actions speak louder then words, and in my opinion they do. I personally believe that actions are another form of speech so many trivial ones, or ones doen for individuality should be protected under the 1st amendment.
ReplyDeleteAlex W: I agree with your question1 answer for case 1. I agree with this because the constitution does say that they need a warent which makes it complete okay for her to deny them entry since they did not have a warrant.