A Letter On The Rights Of Public Order

I personally identify with the public-order perspective because I think public safety is most important. Without public-order our country would be much less organized and wouldn’t be as safe for us to live in. I do believe every person is entitled to their individual rights until the safety of the community is at risk. There are many examples of how public-order keeps the community safe, here are just a couple examples.

Section 15 of the Charter provides every human being with the right to freedom of expression; every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference and has the right to freedom of expression, whether it is orally, in writing, in print or way of art. Josh’s expression in regards to an advertisement was initially protected by the Charter. Firstly what must be looked upon to determine if an

In the 1773 when the Sons of Liberty tossed a shipload of tea in the Boston Harbor, many people portrayed them as violent criminals. Although they did treat some wooden crates rather badly, they were very organized and even swept up spilled leaves off the ship’s deck when they were done. There have even been cases recently of people practicing peaceful, civil disobedience who were incriminated in the media, but since these events are recent and heated, I will not discuss them. Alternately, sometimes protesters who are behaving violently and are putting other people’s lives at risk are cast as peaceful citizens concerned about the current state of political affairs. This can be dangerous, because it tries to grant legitimacy to a group that does not need their actions condoned, and turns civil disobedience into another meaning less

The court also concluded that that the flag-desecration statute was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that were likely to result in a serious disturbance of the peace. The flag burning in this particular case did not threaten such a reaction. There were only a few witnesses to the act that stated that they were upset with the action but were not harmed in any way. There was no breach of peace nor does the record reflect that the situation was potentially explosive. Just because someone was

As an American citizen, we are guaranteed many freedoms through the Constitution. The first amendment in the Constitution states that “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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” (US Const. amend. I). This means that all people have the right to assemble a protest peacefully, and Congress in unable to prevent this practice. However, in recent years this has become controversial because many residents question how much protesters can get away with before a demonstration becomes turbulent. Because of this question, there have been many cases in which law enforcement has become involved in rallies. This essay will explore when law enforcement became involved in rallies, and when they did not.

This case points back to the purpose of government. Dwight D. Eisenhower as did many Unites States presidents, stated countless times that a democracy can only stand with virtuous people as its citizens. If evil people fill the country, only a dictatorship can bring order. This case demonstrates that America is built upon allowing the free speech of controversial and opposing views. Limiting the rights of the NSPA would pave the way for other types of speech to be limited. My initial view was of course that anyone promoting Nazis views should not be allowed to march, especially considering the town’s Jewish population. After further consideration, I realized that if the government has the ability to restrict Nazis’ protests, they have the ability to silence me if I am trying to share my faith with a Nazi and it offends them. If we give this power of limiting free speech to the government, they will basically be able to limit it however they so choose. If we allow the government to specifically certain types of speech, that power will invariably grow and power that is once tasted is not given back. We would most definitely loose freedom in other areas of speech. The speech, though I’m sure it caused emotional distress, did not physically harm the citizens of the town. I do think that the banning of the swastika was appropriate. At popularly agreed times, it is not appropriate to demonstrate with the Confederate Flag or other symbols that can inferred with extreme

Feinberg posited that harm cannot shoulder all necessary work for free speech and suggested that an offense principle be introduced (van Mill, 2002). Offense implies lighter ‘harm’ than harm itself and so the penalties should be less severe than those for causing harm. He says that offense takes place if three of the criteria are present: “one is offended when a) one suffers a disliked state, b) one attributes that state to the wrongful conduct of another, and c) resents the other for his role in bringing one to that state.” (Feinberg, 1985). The problem with offense is, it is very difficult to ascertain which expressive acts is offensive to anyone. In a multi-racial, multi-cultural society like Australia, anything can be considered offensive to another group of

It’s clear to see that the city of Justice needs a solution to the problem they have encountered. The Cajun Association for the Legalization of Marijuana (CALM) is planning an event that some find is too loud and lasts too long. The two proposals from Councilman Prejean and Councilwoman Gautreaux have attempted to give a solution to the people without suppressing free speech. This issue about the protest is not about the speech itself, but the time and manner of the speech. Unfortunately, only one of the proposals pay attention to this fact and only that proposal can be constitutional.

It wasn’t the right time or place for the Student for Peace to start a riot. If a person is charged or arrested for doing something it matters what time and where was it done. In Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Holmes stated, “What someone is constitutionally allowed to do depends upon the time and place in which it is done.” This quote means that if someone is allowed to do something it all depends on what time or place it was done. For example, a person can’t just yell Fire in a crowded movie theater if there isn’t actually a fire. That would’ve caused a lot of chaos that can cause injuries and also death. It all depends on the time and place. This applies to Student for Peace because it was a park and there was a festival. In the park there are supposed to be kids Student for Peace were handing out graphic photos that were inappropriate for kids. Even if kids didn’t take the flyers, in festivals flyers are all over the place like the ground. So, kids can eventually see it. Also, it was a festival to be a community not to fight.

Kenneth Ramsden had been charged twice for placing posters on hydro poles in the city of Peterborough ON. A by-law had been passed prohibiting advertising on city property. The ads were for an upcoming concert by Ramsden’s band.

When the National Assembly did not work to get the rights of the people on a constitution, the National Assembly delegates wrote the Declarations of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. This listed what they wanted changed in the government, what the rights of the people were and what kind and how much power the government was allowed to have. This went on to be the main document or constitution of the French Revolutionaries.

By the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon) “You have a constitutionally protected right to engage in peaceful protest in 'traditional public forums’ such as streets, sidewalks or parks.” But most people aren't familiar for what they are doing and breaking the law. But most police do not arrest for trespassing like they should. “The right to join with fellow citizens in protest or peaceful assembly is critical to a functioning democracy and at the core of the First Amendment. “Unfortunately, law enforcement officials sometimes violate this right through means intended to thwart free public expression.” These officers don't force this law as much as they should which has many people thinking they should protest how they want. Causing them to do crazy things to get their points

Through community policing the agencies get word of a gathering from who most likely has concern or complaint of the protest. When officers get on scene they form a border between the protesters and their target. Sometimes the target is private property in which police officers have a right to block the protesters from the premises. Since a peaceful protest is going on so far, no citations are to be issued for that they are simply exercising their rights. But protest can turn violent in a split second and for seemingly no reason at all. (Applegate, 1998) “One person’s violent reaction at the scene of the crime may spread, through contagion to other members of the group. A few highly emotional people shouting out bitter grievances, can whip a crowd into a frenzy.” (Archer, 25,

A police officer encounters three males loitering in a public garage. Further investigation uncovers one of them has a bench warrant for unpaid parking tickets. In some jurisdictions the officer will be given the choice of detaining the individual or simply letting him know that he needs to take care of his tickets as soon as possible. This is done so that an officer will not get tied up dealing with a minor violation and allows him to continue his duties.

Although some hold the need for police reform higher than others, I personally believe that with the current turmoil in today's society, police reform is vital. If we continue to turn a blind eye on these issues, the harassment will only get worse. Having said that, I first-handedly experienced the positive effects of peaceful resistance by holding true to my belief of standing up for what is right. My participation in this rally enabled me to learn how to cooperate and discuss social issues with others, while adhering to the rules of our community. Despite recent civil unrest and the unknown temperament of the local citizens in relation to these social inequities, I felt as if the rally was necessary to attend. Speaking out against injustices is worth putting myself in a risky setting. Being in a risky setting for just one day does not compare to the angst of those who are wrongly targeted by police each day. I feel as though it is a civic duty of mine to ensure that my voice is heard, regardless of the