SONG LYRICS AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT We believe that the first amendment protects all song lyrics unless the lyrics incite a “clear and present danger.” The first amendment of the constitution is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.” Although we have these rights guaranteed to us by the first amendment, our speech is restricted if it incites a clear and present danger. So what do we do about songs that can be misconstrued about their message and purpose? Should their lyrics be protected by the first amendment? In our opinion, the first amendment should protect all song lyrics unless they incite a “clear and present danger” The clear and present danger clause was produced during World War 1 in the case of United States v. Schenck, where Charles Schenck sent 15,000 anti-draft letters through the mail. The government accused Schenck of illegally interfering with military equipment, violating the Espionage Act which prohibits all false statements that interfere with the military power.
Took many principles of progressivism and translated them into foreign policy. 11] Espionage and Sedition Acts - basically gave the US a right to convict anybody of treason if they were suspected of getting secret information and giving it to the enemy. Mainly went against the socialist parties. 12] Schenck v. United States - a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the question of whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. The court said that his criminal conviction was constitutional because the first amendment didn't protect speech encouraging insubordination.
The Cigarette Ad Revolution We live in a country where we occasionally find ourselves blindfolded by censorship. Of all the amendments, the government chooses to bend the cornerstone of our American being: the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, press, and most importantly, speech. In “Cigarette Ads and the Press,” writer Ira Glasser argues against the government’s censorship of cigarette advertising. According to him, the government holds so-called exemptions allowing them to bypass the Constitution’s First Amendment by condemning tobacco ads as messengers of death. He says the “terrible erosion of First Amendment Rights [is excused by] the tendency of courts to allow illegitimate government claims of danger to justify
King points out, “I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all” (218). An unjust law, to Martin Luther King Jr., is not a law that people should follow. Martin Luther King Jr. disobeyed the laws and protested did sit-ins and even spoke against the white people. Although he felt he was exercising his right to freedom of speech, everyone else felt he was breaking the laws by speaking out and not obeying the segregated areas. This led to the assassination of King in
War on Terrorism Habeas Corpus Rules Charlyn Russell POL201 American National Government Instructor: Teri Kuffel 09/01/13 War on Terrorism Habeas Corpus Rules The system of detaining will not work to decrease the risk on terrorist attacks, which is most likely the reason of Guantanamo and the "War on Terrorism" unfortunately a system intended to help our government succeed in its cases can ultimately lead the investigators to show less rigidity than they would require winning in a regular court arrangement. It is dangerous to have rigged rules because of the negative influence the truthfulness of terrorism investigations have. By wrongly identifying people as a terrorist by putting together disorderly information can
Labelling a person as an illegal alien portrays that the individual, as opposed to his or her actions, is unlawful. By using this term Dwyer implies that the person’s very existence as an authorized migrant in the country is criminal. His use of the term is not only dehumanizing, but also racial and ethnically biased. Conclusion In conclusion, the article portrays a detailed discussion on Dwyer’s views towards the gun control law and the state of the country under the current government. He uses language to sway his readers and provides evidence to support his views.
To ensure the federal officials would not later take those rights the ninth amendment was written. Then, to ensure that the powers delegated to the federal government could still be exercised the 10th amendment was enacted (Hornberger, 2005). The states have specific restrictions due to the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits states from coining money and making anything but gold and silver legal tender. The states cannot pass bills of attainers, enter into any treaties, and enacting ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligated contract (Hornberger, 2005).
Secondly, another two key repressive policies of William Pitt were the ‘Two Acts’, the Seditious Meetings Act and Treasonable Act, both of 1795. The Treasonable Act appeared to be a vicious attack on personal liberties. Similarly to the suspension of Habeas Corpus, it was put it in by Pitt to install fear into radicals by extending the definition of the word ‘treason’ to both speaking and writing. However, this was arguably more effective than the abolition of Habeas Corpus as it lowered the amount of people writing about the cause to gain support, as people such as Paine and Hardy were effectively spreading the radical message
Rhetorical Analysis Essay- “Civil Disobedience” The public should not obey and respect a faulty, harmful or malfunctioned government. The essay “Civil disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau alerts the public of that idea and expounds upon it in a variety of ways. With his authorative, rebellious and mainly condescending tone, compelling point of view and diction he inspires the readers to espouse his distaste for the U.S. government and their unjust treatment of the American public. Why follow and associate yourself with a stronger, more powerful institution then yourself that is impure, less than perfect and abuses their powers? With that idea implanted into the audience’s mind, Thoreau proceeds to exercise diction while fully getting his point across.
Both Presidents appear to have been wrongly impeached. Johnson was attempting to prove a point that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional and should be repealed. On the other hand, President Clinton’s impeachment appeared to be about rivalry. The Clinton trial was heavily inconsistent; “facts” were tainted by political bias and the charge did not meet any of the constitutional standards to cause impeachment nor removal. Although Clinton’s scandal was unprofessional, it was not a great enough cause for impeachment.