Gray Area In Law Pros And Conswella

     The first and inargueably the most significant of the amendments to our Constitution is the First Amendment. The amendment that established our freedoms as citizens of our new confederation. The First Amendment insured, among other things, freedom of speech and of the press. Since the establishment of these rights, they have often been in question. People have debated over, "What is too much freedom?", and "When is this

Everyone knows the importance of our rights. We know exactly when to use them. For example, our first amendment, freedom of speech; Americans can speak about how they feel towards things. No one can stop us from saying what we think even if we are criticizing the government it’s our right to speak up. Having a right is a duty, we must use it when we know it will be helpful. Another example is our second amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Strasser). Many have an opinion about gun control. Should guns be allowed in schools? Are guns the reason why people commit crimes? Gun control issues have been around for a while now. Some think that having the right to bear arms should not be constitutional because they think that the law is giving these criminals a right to do the crime, but what we really don’t think about is, how can a criminal buy a gun if they have a criminal record. “Federal law prohibits a convicted felon from purchasing or owning a gun” (Banks).

Another opposing argument against the first amendment’s importance is the fact that by having no prior restraint in the public, there is a possibility of the people learning about something that they should not know. An example would be the possibility of a terrorist attack. If word leaks out of the possibility of an attack, the country may go into a state of havoc and chaos due to their worry. Some argue that in this situation it may be beneficial to have some sort of prior restraint on the news. Due to the possibility of worrying news leaked to the public, it degrades the importance of the first amendment because it shows that there is a need for some prior restraint in the government. This lowers the importance

In today's society though, people are starting to become extremely confused on what the First Amendment actually covers. For example, burning the American flag in a protest is actually protected by the First Amendment, but many people see burning the

A very popular constitutional issue in America is the First Amendment. The First Amendment is meant to protect, but in today’s society it is being questioned that the argument is being overly used. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference (Esmaili). Freedom of religion created the separation of church and state. It prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without government interference or regulation. The right of freedom of expression gives the right to assemble and gather for peaceful and lawful purposes. It was adopted into the Bill of Rights in 1791. The Court later interpreted the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. Putting this is layman’s term, you can pretty much say what you want without being penalized.

Over time the Supreme Court has decided that certain aspects of freedom of speech are more important than others. For example, if someone used their First Amendment rights to lie about things they knew were false, threatened to commit a crime, insult another person, or used overly explicit content, the courts have moral grounds to prosecute those persons. It makes sense that if someone’s freedom of speech lessened another person’s right to freedom of religion or freedom of opinion by instilling fear, that is an unfair use of the First Amendment. These parameters, although not specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights are very important to protect everyone’s right to feel safe believing the things that they do.

Avoiding the pitfalls of the unauthorized practice of law, also known as UPL, is one of the most important duties that all legal professionals or aspiring law students should learn and integrate into their law career, in order to maintain impeccable ethics and conduct at all times. Clear rules and regulations must be followed in regards to the unauthorized practice of law. Thus, in order to avoid the unauthorized practice of law, one must first know what it is by definition and how it pertains to their best practices and due diligence. Furthermore, the violations of one’s failure to comply with the rules and regulations for UPL, may be costly in more ways than one.

One of the reasons is that people are always taking advantage of it. One way is that people try to use it as a joke most of the time and that is one way for someone to ruin it. Another reason is because of social media. An example is somebody goes on Facebook™ and posts something hateful and then they get in trouble for it and they use the excuse saying they believe that the First Amendment gives them freedom to say whatever they want to say. Then they get in trouble and then they will blame the first amendment because no one told them to write that they have the freedom to say what they want it is just are able to risk putting it online line to get in trouble.

The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States

The First Amendment one that is watered down, serves as example of the freedom we as Americans have. It is best known as the amendment that lets us say what we want when we want. There is more to it that gets overlooked. It blocks government from establishing a theocracy, grants the people the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government for a redress of grievances. Our press is independent and is given freedom to publish at will. Our freedoms embolden us to speak out and organize for progress and against society's wrongs. Sometimes groups will organize to speak out but will sink to extreme measures as a means of expression. The first amendment has seen challenges in recent months. “Donald Trump referred to the press, and I'm quoting his exact words, as "dishonest, disgusting, and scum."Just ten days ago, you might have heard in a press conference, President Donald Trump said that the "press is out of control."(Chemerinsky, 553). To clashes between different ideologies on college campuses with some initiating riots. The first amendment grants many freedoms, however it does not grant protection from consequence.

Michael, I believe that we are sharing the same point of view. I am agree with you that there are several differences between what we are experiencing those day and what our constitution founders experience decades ago. I am sure that if they still alive, they will call for more amendments, which some of them seem rational. Like you said, the constitution has some of the weakness that must be taken into consideration. It is time for our legislators to make some actions that might clear some of our constitution’s ambiguity. Like I mentioned above, everything is changing. For instance, the technology that we use a decade ago becomes updated and beyond now. Something for some laws. They need to be updated as

In the United States Constitution, the First Amendment 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” (Gold). Historically, as demonstrated in cases such as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the government in general, has well-upheld this amendment, but starting sometime in the second half of the 20th century, they are slowly embracing it less and less, as demonstrated in cases such as Texas v. Johnson. The recent hostility towards the First Amendment demonstrates that its rights

However, simply because there has not been a successful amendment in recent years does not mean there has not been any disagreement over the ability of the constitution’s ability to defend the liberties of the American people. The fact is that in a developed, civilized, democratic nation like the United States there will always be debate over necessary reforms and so there is and always will be disagreement over how effectively the constitution protects freedom.

Ever since the Bush Administration and the events of September 11, 2001, the American people have dealt with the government taking away bits and bits of their constitutional rights. Such rights like the freedom of association, speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to legal representation, speedy and public trial, and the right to liberty. Any new law that infringes on these rights ands is created and passed is a bit of freedom being taken away. The government has limited individuals’ right to freedom of assembly by authorities seeking to repress the activities of those that are simply defending human rights. Censorship has also limited

Freedom of expression has always been a heated and heavily debated topic throughout our society, more so in recent times due to the increasing amount of freedoms that we gain. However, it is only natural that free speech be something of extreme amounts of conflict since this right is expressed in the very first amendment of the Constitution. But, how loosely should such an important document within our history be interpreted? This has been a question for years, and it is obvious that this particular amendment presents itself through our day-to-day activities. The real issue with freedom of speech is that, even though it is presented to us, there are obviously people who would abuse it to invoke emotional distress, or even to invoke acts of