preview

Case Study of Brady v. Salt Lake City Essay

Decent Essays
Significant Facts Two Utah sisters, Maria and Jan Brady posted a message on Facebook in support of anti-globalization and anti-genetically organism (GMO) activists against McDonalds restaurants, who had incited riots in Europe. The sister’s message, sent to over 500 “friends”, asking them to join the sisters in two days at 10 p.m. at a McDonalds near the sister’s apartment for a “night of riot, pillage, and fun”. A secondary message was sent out asking the participants to bring items that could be used as weapons or cause property damage. However, one of the “friends” that the message was sent to turned the postings over to the Salt Lake Police Department. SLCPD officers set up an operation at the scheduled place and time the sister’s…show more content…
Similarly, a State’s statute will found constitutional if they are not arbitrary and a reasonable attempt of the state to protect the public within vested state police powers. In Gitlow v. New York, the petitioner was charged with criminal anarchy for advocating a socialist reform in the United States. In 1919, he had published a socialist manifesto and was preparing a mass distribution throughout New York City. The Court held that the State’s statute fell within ordinary scrutiny, and a reasonable means of exercising the police powers of the State. Justice Sanford held that a state has the power to prevent disturbing the peace and restrict speech that has the potential to incite violence, even though there may be no immediate threat of such action. Gitlow set the precedent for the “Bad Tendency” test, where freedom of speech and press does not give an individual the unmitigated right to any speech or publication without being held responsible for the results. However, in 1969, the Supreme Court held that the clear and present danger test was not an acceptable standard for interpreting the First Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, Brandenburg was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act, which prohibits “advocating the duty, necessity, or priority of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” (Epstein & Walker, p. 223). The Court held that although the Act did
Get Access