Public Participation And Petition For Boycott Products

Cox v. Louisiana it states that free speech and assembly “do not mean that everyone with

“The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speakers, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals…Indeed, to exclude or impede corporate speech is to muzzle the principal agents of the modern free economy. We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate.”

In this case study we try discuss about Southern California Supermarket Strike. The Southern California Supermarket Strike of 2003-2004 was a strike among supermarket workers in Southern California.

The majority consisted of Justice Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, and Arthur J. Goldberg. The majority opinion was made by William J. Brennan, to protect the right to freedom of expression in the First Amendment, the Court rule that the criminal libel law should follow the same standards as civil libel law. True statements regardless of its malicious value will not be considered libel. While statements that are intentionally false or created with a rash disregard for the truth are considered to be libel and can be punished by the law. The restriction was modeled from a prior case, New York Times v. Sullivan, freedom of speech protection should not be exercise separately to a civil libel statute than to a criminal case. The Court concluded that the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute was unlawfully broad and that it breaches the protections of the First Amendment’s free

Company Q is a small local grocery store chain located in a major metropolitan area. They have recently closed a couple of stores in higher-crime-rate areas of the city, reportedly because these two stores were consistently losing money. After years of requests from customers, all of their stores have started offering a very limited amount of health-conscience and organic

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that phrase did indeed endorse religion which was contrary to the law and the Constitution. The suit was, however, dismissed because Mr. Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and could not, by law, file a suit on her behalf.

United States v. Morrison is a civil case as it was brought up seeking civil remedies under the “Commerce Clause”, it was however, held that the allegations could not be sustained by the clause for which the complain was brought to court.

The Plaintiff, Sullivan, was one of three Commissioners of Montgomery, Alabama who sued the Defendant, the New York Times, for printing and releasing an full page ad about the civil rights movement taking place in the south that defamed Sullivan. The ad was called "Heed Their Rising Voices" and it caused a "wave" of terror that had been directed against those who took place in the civil rights movement in the South. Some of the facts were false. The ad didn't single handily point out Sullivan, he claimed that it referred to him indirectly because he had oversight responsibility of the police. The Defendant stated that they didn't have any reason or proof to say the facts were false. No one put out the extra effort to see if the facts were false

Reviewing precedent of New York Times v. Sullivan about the right to make false statements. In this case, the Court ruled that states must prove that he or she had malice whining creating a false statement. This case is related to the United States v. Fields as it explains that speech is restricted for content reasons if and only malice can be proven. Another precedent is Texas v. Johnson as it demonstrates the right to disagreeable speech as he had the right to free speech when he burned his flag. The case related by the person’s speech as it would offends the doings by lying.

Sometimes unions encourage people to boycott products from an industry or company. Managers can bring in strikebreakers, who work, but are not a part of the union. They can also use a lockout, which means that the management just locks the employees out, until they agree to the terms of the contract that the management draws up.

A content-neutral regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech that is narrowly tailored to serve a significant interest “need not be the least restrictive means” of doing so. Ward, 491 U.S. at 798. Instead, a regulation is narrowly tailored so long as the regulation permits a significant governmental interest that “would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation” and the law does not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interest.” Id. at 799.

The lawsuit’s First Amendment implications are not always understood and appreciated by the public in cases like these. “This sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions, or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court

I think that sit-ins are the most effective form of protesting because it means that you are standing your ground and you are not giving up for yourself that easy. The forms of protesting that I see today are the people standing on the sides of the streets and protesting for pride and races and things like that. I see more violent protests because the police are sometimes just a little too over barring and then it just leads to chaos. People create change by protesting in a positive way more than a negative violent way. The civil rights activists had to go through a lot of beating and fighting to get what they wanted to happen. The promotion of equal rights is basically meaning that everyone is equal and no one is different because we are

Circumstances pertaining to endangerment may permit one to disobey the law. If someones going 40 MPH in a 55 MPH speed limit zone I believe that it should be allowed to break the law and pass them. Thats just an example of a minor law, this idea gets more controversial when it comes to bigger more serious laws like fighting back if someone starts to attack you, you are assaulting someone but at the same time you are defending yourself. Some may think disobeying the law is always a bad idea but there are definitely circumstances that are acceptable to break the law

After a two year process of legal proceedings, N.W. lost the case in the Supreme Court. The ruling was “First Amendment freedom of expression does not protect statements that public employees make pursuant to their official duties, as compared with those they make as citizens on matters of public concern” (Stone, Zirkel 2010). N.W. was excluded from First Amendment protection due to the court concluding that she was performing the duties she was paid to perform while reporting her concerns.