polsc110_document_week03AssignmentPacket

.doc

School

California State University, Chico *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

CULTURAL A

Subject

Political Science

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

doc

Pages

Uploaded by fjrjfe

Week 03 Assignment Packet Complete the Week 03 assignment packet according to the directions listed in I-Learn. Record your answers directly below each question. When you have finished your packet, save it and upload it to the W03 Worksheet: Civil Liberties page on I-Learn. Part 1: Report on a Civil Liberties Case 1. Summary: Obergefell v. Hodges is a lawsuit that originated from the recognition of same-sex marriage. Which at the time was legal in some states and illegal in others. Obergfell filed suit against states that didn't recognize same-sex marriage claiming that the states violated the the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, which resulted in same-sex marriage bans being deemed as unconstitutional, resulting in the plaintiffs' victory. 2. What was the court's ruling? The court's ruling was that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional and that everyone has a right to marriage according to the Fourteenth Amendment. 3. Do you agree with the ruling? Why or why not? While I personally don't agree with the ruling. From a paper viewpoint, they have a point in the fourteenth amendment allowing same-sex marriage as it clearly states that everyone has a right to marriage despite differences. 4. What did you learn about Supreme Court cases from this exercise? I learned that there is a great reliance on judicial decisions in many of the rulings. I never realized that cases that go to the Supreme Court have a great emphasis on the Constitution and are generally in relation to the Constitution in one way or another, as that is the cynosure of the Supreme Court. 5. What were the points of the dissenting opinion and do you agree with them? From my research, one of the main points of dissenting opinion was that the right to marriage does not make it where the states are in need of changing their policies and laws on the subject. There was also the point that the Constitution does not specifically address same-sex marriage. Therefore, there is no such justification that the states need to allow it as it is something that the Constitution does not explicitly go into detail with. BYU-Idaho 1 POLSC 110

I agree with the dissenting opinions as they have solid grounds for why states should have the right to decide if same-sex marriage should be accepted, as it is not deemed to be a federal issue but a state issue, according to the dissenting opinion. BYU-Idaho 2 POLSC 110

Part 2: Get Involved Activity on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Part A 1. Which of the following is not explicitly protected by the First Amendment: assembly, petition, privacy, or the press? Privacy is not explicitly protected by the First Amendment. Unless in the home. 2. Do the federal courts have the right to send a journalist to jail for refusing to reveal a news source? Do you think this is justified? Why or why not? The federal courts have the right to send a journalist to jail for refusing to reveal a news source. I feel this is not justified as it is a journalist's right to publish the press without government interference. Journalists have shield laws that should protect them from having to reveal information, but it seems these laws are not always up to practice, and the government finds ways around them. 3. Which of the following do you think material on the Internet is most like: speech by individual citizens, programming by broadcast television stations, or reporting by newspapers? In my opinion, material on the internet is most likely speech by individual citizens. Sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, General Forums, Etc. Have allowed individuals to express their thoughts, concerns, opinions, and feelings like never before. Therefore, individual opinion dominates the internet. While private business is no doubt on the internet and contributes to sources of information on sites such as Reddit and YouTube, such as news stations, private business, and of equivalence, the bulk of the information and videos is provided by individual citizens, which dominates the internet. 4. Should government be able to regulate offensive or pornographic content on the Internet? Why or why not? The government should not be allowed to regulate offensive information on the internet. If they were to do so, they would be violating independent media. While the First Amendment does not explicitly protect obscenity, it does allow Americans the right to access such sources of information and prevents the violation of such information to not being accessible. Part B BYU-Idaho 3 POLSC 110

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help