The Privilege For False Privilege

Privilege is defined as “a special advantage or authority possessed by a particular person or group” in the Cambridge Dictionary. Globally, white individuals are often granted privileges than minority groups do not receive. While white privilege often goes unnoticed by white individuals, it causes many disadvantages for people of color and effects how they see themselves. Furthermore, Affirmative Action attempts to equal the playing field for minorities but is faced with contention by many white people.

“Testimonials during court hearings are performed under oath, hence the statements of an individual being examined are assumed to be true and no other statement should be falsified or forged. When the officer does not pronounce the truth in court, he or she is still capable of providing a reason for his deception, based on a substitute arrangement, such as when he or she is operating as a witness to the prosecution and is not considered as the defendant in a court case. However, it is also required that the officer is conscious of the rules of the court system that he or she has sworn to tell the truth during examination” (Chevigny , 1969).

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Unearned privilege is the idea that a specific group of people are entitled to have special things or treatment, despite doing nothing to deserve them. Examples of groups of people who have unearned privilege include white people, men, right-handed people, tall people, in shape people, celebrities, any figures in the public eye, and spoiled kids. There are many more, based on who you ask and their opinion on the subject. I identify with all the examples McIntosh listed in the area discussing her “daily effects of white privilege” because I am white. Some of the examples directly form McIntosh’s list that are possibly outdated are as follows.

Defendant, Preston G. Holmes, III and Matthew D. Jones, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney and Eugene Gorokhov, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to exclude inadmissible hearsay evidence that the government may seek to introduce at trial. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude the records and contents thereof (1) U-Haul, (2) Sharifa Shuler’s cellphone, (3) automatic license plate reader, and (4) gun manufacturers.

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (U.S. Const. amend. VI). The history of the modern right to counsel dates back to over a century ago in the Indiana Supreme Court case of Webb v. Baird, 6 In. 13 (1853), in which the right to counsel for a person accused of a crime was officially recognized (Koplow, 2007). However, it was not a decision based on constitutional or statutory law, but a decision warranted under “the principles of a civilized society” (Koplow, 2007). Since the case of Webb v. Baird, the right to counsel has immensely extended beyond just appointing an indigent person an attorney.

IV. Issues: (1) Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech prohibit public figures from recovering damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress?

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

In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), the Supreme Court decided the First Amendment did not grant reportorial privilege in the court. This means journalists and other members of the press cannot use freedom of speech as a defense in order to not testify. This includes if a source was meant to be confidential.

In 1878 Congress made the defendant in any criminal case a witness at his own request. The Supreme Court stated that "the technical barriers excluding witnesses have been removed, till now it is generally, though perhaps not universally, true that no one is excluded therefrom unless the lips of the originally adverse party are closed by death, or unless someone of those peculiarly confidential relations, like that of husband and wife, forbids the breaking of silence."

Both rules only mention that it is the court reporters/clerk’s duty to prepare and reviews the transcript and no other rules mention another position doing so, therefore the author’s position is supported inferentially.

The Defendants, Reverend Linwood Rooks, Reverend Harriet Yun, and Bald Mountain Community Church (BMCC), move to strike the Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant Yun to Answer Deposition Questions. Reverend Yun places high importance on the confidentiality of her conversations with her congregants. All of her conversations with Esther Borzoi have been kept confidential until Ms. Borzoi decided to waive her privilege for one of their most recent conversations. Since Reverend Yun believes that it is important for her to maintain the confidences of those in her congregation, she has refused to waive privilege and has asserted her right of privilege under Alabama Rules of Evidence Rule 505. Reverend Yun has proven that she meets

Lewis states that this case “revolutionized the law of libel in the United States” he explains that “The old common law doctrine putting the burden on libel defendants to prove truth was reversed.” (Lewis, Pg.55) This case even resulted in affecting the law in other countries, I agree that it was the right approach to create the three laws of libel. I feel that Lewis does a great job writing this case objectively yet still allowing his readers to come to the same conclusion he does, the case was handled properly by the Supreme Court in their ending deciscion.

Attorney Client Privilege, which originated in Roman and canon law, has evolved into a recognized judicial doctrine and is necessary in order to provide clients with access to effective, well informed counsel. In Upjohn Co. v US the Supreme Court the Court