Walker Vs Birmingham Case Study

One hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation was written, African Americans were still fighting for equal rights in every day life. The first real success of this movement did not come until the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954 which was followed by many boycotts and protests. The largest of these protests, the March on Washington, was held on August 28, 1963 “for jobs and freedom” (March on Washington 11). An incredible amount of preparation went into the event to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of people attending from around the nation and to deal with any potential incidents.

“Expression may be symbolic, as well as verbal. Symbolic speech is conduct that expresses an idea. Although speech is commonly thought of as verbal expression, we are all aware of nonverbal communication. Sit-ins, flag waving, demonstrations, and wearing…protest buttons are examples of symbolic speech. While most forms of conduct could be said to express ideas in some way, only some conduct is protected as symbolic speech. In analyzing such cases, the courts ask whether the speaker intended to convey a particular message, and whether it is likely that the message was understood by those who viewed it. In order to convince a court that symbolic conduct should be punished and not protected as speech, the government must show it has an important reason. However, the reason cannot be that the government disapproves of the message conveyed by the symbolic conduct” (Arbertman 442-3).

In result to this case, the majority of the court noted that the Texas law discriminated upon the law. They feel that this act might bring up anger in other people and more flag burning. The majority of the court also agreed that Johnson had the right to use that form of symbolic speech because it is protected by the first amendment. They find this act is very offensive, but the society’s outrage alone is not justification for depressing Johnson’s freedom of speech.

Ferguson case of 1896 in which the Supreme Court upheld the legality of racial segregation. At the time of the case, segregation between blacks and whites already existed in most schools, restaurants and other public facilities. In the Plessy v. Ferguson case, the Supreme Court that such of a segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The 14th Amendment provided equal protection of law to all U.S. citizens regardless of the citizens race. The court ruled that the Plessy v. Ferguson case was legal as long as black and whites were equal. After this law came to be, public schools, public transportation and other public facilities were made separate; but they never had made these places equal. Equality represents what the United States stands for. We the people work together in marches, protests to oppose discrimination on the basis of race and gender. The Sacco and Vanzetti case showed the world that the how justice system in the United States really was. Sacco and Vanzetti received an unfair trial and were sentenced to death, not due to the evidence being presented, but due to their political beliefs and ethnic backgrounds. As Americans, we tend to be afraid of what happens and due to these fears we forget about what it truly means to be an American. This is the world we live in and quite some times, things are unfair; it’s the way the world

On the morning of parks trial buses rumbled nearly empty through the streets of Montgomery. By the next morning the council led by Jo Ann Robinson had printed 52,000 fliers asking, Montgomery blacks to stay off the buses. It was an important and an accepted rule that whites sit in the front and the African American riders had to sit in the back of all buses. A group of about 50 African American leaders and one white minister, Robert Graetz, gathered in the basement of Dr. King?s church to endorse the boycott and begin planning a massive rally.

This week’s article “Situating Legal Consciousness: Experiences and Attitudes of Ordinary Citizens about Law and Street Harassment” by Laura Nielsen studies people’s attitudes towards the regulation of offensive public speech by race, gender and class and the reasoning behind their attitudes. Nielsen introduces the idea of legal consciousness, which reflects on the unique backgrounds within these disadvantaged groups and how it affects their understanding and importance of law (RELATION?). This study found that the majority was against legal regulation of offensive public speech based on the assumption that they can handle these situations on their own, similar to the idea of in house dispute resolution offices in which these situations are

In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.

The plaintiff, Plessy was criminally liable under the separate but equal statute for using facilities designated for a different race. He was thus found guilty under the fact that the statute reasonably exercised the state police powers with regard to the state’s tradition, usage, and custom. Plessy, thus filed a petition against Justice Ferguson for writs of prohibition and certiorari in the Louisiana Supreme Court on the

The Shiners participated in peaceful protest in order to stop the developers from building on the land. This action is protected under the First Amendment. This Amendment also makes the denial of the Shiner’s application for a peaceful protest in front of the Florida State Capital Building, a violation of their rights (Grimes, 1978). The government had nothing to base their denial on besides their disapproval of what they Shiners are protesting against. The past protest by the Shiner’s did not result in violence nor did they take any action to incite individuals to turn on

March 16 saw a demonstration in Montgomery, Alabama in which 580 demonstrators planned to march “from the Jackson Street Baptist Church to the Montgomery County Courthouse” (Reed 26). These protestors included a large number of northern college students. They met a police line a few blocks from the Courthouse and were forbidden from proceeding because “they did not have a parade permit” (Reed 26). Across the street came 40 or so students who planned on joining the group en route to the Courthouse. Eventually a few of the demonstrators dared to cross the street, led by James Forman who had organized the march. When it seemed the whole group would cross, police took action, with mounted officers and volunteers arriving at 1:12 pm. Riding into the small group of protestors, they forced most to withdraw, but a few stood fast around a utility pole where horsemen began to beat them. “A posseman

In the Edwards v. South Carolina case a group of african-american protesters organised a peaceful march to the South Carolina State House and were confronted by a group of police who arrested the protesters for “breach of the peace” after they refused to disperse, and sang patriotic songs. The supreme court decided in favor of the protesters and said that the arrests violated the protesters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance, which requires a permit for parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest (53).

In this case, disenfranchised individuals have no other recourse than civil disobedience. But civil disobedience is not only a tool for those being oppressed, for it also serves as an avenue for secure individuals to object towards laws that they think are unjust. In committing acts of civil disobedience in free societies, individuals are attempting to change their society for the

United States citizens taking action through civil disobedience have arguably secured vital rights for the people of this country. These rights include the right to vote, equal protection under the law, and equality for everyone regardless of gender, religion, or ethnicity. According to John Rawls, “Civil disobedience is a public, non-violent, and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or governmental policies.” Through this course of action, citizens of all ethnicities and beliefs have come together to secure rights that had not yet been granted to them.

Civil disobedience isn’t uncommon in America, but the modern idea of civil disobedience has become flawed and distorted from its original intent. Currently, there are thousands of causes and ideals that are spastically flung around and just as soon forgotten. This is because the guise of civil disobedience is often abused by people simply to attract publicity. These methods of claimed civil disobedience often do little to nothing in working towards the goal that they claim to stand for, or their intensions are vague and unclear. For example, in the news, the most popular recent controversial example of civil disobedience is the kneeling during the national anthem before a football game. At its manifestation, this movement was intended to protest the inequalities in the treatment of races by the police especially in Chicago. This effectively accomplished nothing. It raised awareness but the majority of intelligent civilians were already aware of the inequalities. The flaw of this example is that the form of disobedience