What Is Cuomo A Violation Of The First Amendment?

The central issue in the Stromberg case was whether the state of California violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment by making it illegal to display red flags that suggested support of organizations that dissented organized government or favored anarchic action (Communism). This case was a significant landmark in constitutional law because of the Court’s use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect a First Amendment right, symbolic speech, from state infringement. It impacted American society in a positive way because it expanded the freedoms in the First amendment and created the doctrine that would be used in cases involving subjects like American flag and draft card burning. The Supreme Court ruled accurately, the government cannot outlaw speech or expressive conduct because it disapproves the ideas expressed. “Nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not the ideas it expresses.” (pg.25)

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.

The first amendment, the right of freedom of speech is one of the most important classic fantasy to almost anyone living in the United States, building the foundation of our nation. This right gives us plenty of different opportunities to express our opinions and political viewpoints on any issues in America. But it comes with a price, people have been protesting multiple different events trying to prevent people from expressing opposing opinions or political viewpoints on that has issues in America. For the minority of people, expressing a different opinion should be protected no matter how controversial or insensitive it may be.

Throughout history we have seen how the government can censor the media during a time of war, in despite of the first amendment. We are entitled to our voices and opinions and by censoring what the media and citizens feel, not allowing them to express their concerns or ideas or concepts is an atrocity. The government decides if we enter a war not the citizens. Are we are never allowed to speak out against a war? Does this mean we are unpatriotic or unamerican? During the Civil War, the military often kept reporters off the battlefields. Years later, the U.S. entered the First World War and took control of all radio communications and censored all photographs. Congress then passed the Espionage and

Though the First Amendment nationally guarantees our right to free expression, the Fourteenth Amendment also champions our cause in the states by means of the due-process clause. The due-process clause states that "no state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (Wilson). Until 1925, it was legal for the states to pass legislation prohibiting such forms of protest as symbolic speech because the Supreme Court had previosly denied that the due-process clause made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. However, in the case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court decided that freedom of speech and of the press implicated the "fundamental personal rights" protected by the due-process clause, and the states could no longer breach through legislation those freedoms guaranteed to each individual (Wilson). This case established the precedence that state laws involving speech violate the freedom of expression guarantees of the First Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, no matter how offensive or repugnant some forms of expression may be, that expression has strong and definite constitutional protections that cannot be encroached by the national or state governments. To create an amendment to weaken our civil liberties constitutes a means to further destroy the representation of our national symbol - the flag.

In the Supreme Court case, Elonis v. United States, Anthony Elonis, the petitioner, claimed that his First Amendment rights were being denied. Elonis used Facebook as a platform for venting comments about people who he felt had done him wrong. Elonis’ words, however, were interpreted to be threats. As an American citizen, Anthony Elonis is protected by the First Amendment as he claims. Having freedom of speech, however, does not mean that a person can say anything they want, whenever they want. Examining the First Amendment, quoting from the Brief for the United States and the Brief for the Petitioner will prove that Elonis did violate federal law.

The case New York Times Co. Vs United States in summary was a first amendment battle between the United States government and the prominent newspaper cooperation New York Times in 1971. The premises of this legal battle was based on the New York Times reporter Daniel Ellsberg publishing in excerpts illegally leaked, classified documents containing the United States involvement in the Vietnam War specifically on the anticipated death counts (Institution, 2015, p. n .p). However, The United States government finding out about leakage placed a prior restraint also known as “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place” on New York Times cooperation based on National Security grounds (Prior Restraint, 2015). The case, despite the over powering strength of the nation and the accusations against the New York Times Cooperation the case was ruled in favor of the New York Times by the Supreme Court (Curry, Riley, & Battistoni, 2015, p. 458).

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution: an amendment that guarantees three rights, one of which is the right to freedom of expression. Under this, there resides the freedom of press. It assures that people are free to communicate through the means of media and dissemination without governmental restraints. However, if the government desires to interfere in one’s expression, the government can do so, but only with proper justification. In such cases, a court case is necessary (“First Amendment”). One such case is New York Times Co. v. United States. In favor of the publications made by the Times that had caused concern for the U.S. government, the final verdict was right in heeding the First Amendment, for the

The 1st amendment protects US citizens, both natural born and naturalized, from undue censorship by the state and federal government in the free speech clause. The 1st amendment is only compromised in the event of national security, which is supported in Schenk v. United States and affirmed in Abrams v. United States 250 U.S. 616 (1919). Government speech has been assumed in situations where government funding is involved, however, there has been an expectation of private speech in those areas as well. Private speech and government speech often exist in the same spheres, where government speech cannot prevail without trampling the other, and private speech cannot exist wholly without government permission where federal funding is found. An example of this is found in Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, where the Court ruled that the University of Virginia’s refusal to fund student Rosenberger’s publication Wide Awake: A Christian’s Perspective to the University of Virginia was a violation of free speech. Despite the University being a federally and publically funded institution, private speech discussing religion is permitted in the same space as government speech, on the grounds of ensuring equality across the campus. The Court found that if the University was funding secular student magazines publications were being funded, it would only be equal if religious publications received funding. The Court ruled also that the funding of

Issue: Whether the principal’s censorship of the school paper violated the journalism student’s freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment.

As hate crimes have risen in number during the past five years; many state governments have attempted to prevent such crimes by passing laws called bias laws. These laws make a crime that is motivated by hatred based on the victim’s race, religion, ethnic background, or sexual orientation a more serious crime than such an act would ordinarily be. Many people believe that these laws violate the criminal’s freedom of speech. Many hate group members say that freedom of speech is the right to say or write or publish one’s thoughts, or to express one’s self, they also say that this right is guaranteed to all Americans. But people and organizations who are against these hate groups ask themselves if the first amendment include and protect all form of expression, even those that ugly or hurtful like the burning crosses. The Supreme Court Justices have decided that some kinds of speech are not protected by the Constitution,

A group of student created “The Spectrum” and 2 pages of “The Spectrum” contain stories of of divorce and teen pregnancy. These stories were controversial because not everyone had the same opinion about them. Especially the principal who thought the 2 pages of the newspaper was inappropriate so he censored them. This caused outraged because the student thought that the principal’s action violated the 1st Amendment which is their freedom

In 2015, Presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed that he would consider shutting down mosques in the United States. Now being president, he created an executive order mandating the closure of all mosques which is a violation of The First Amendment of the Constitution which states that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

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

Religious and political belief, although divided, act upon the other. To prove this point, Mario Cuomo wrote and declared an edict labeled Religious Belief and Public Morality, A Catholic Governor’s Perspective. Throughout the speech, Mario Cuomo makes numerous accounts of his personal and religious life; indicting and commanding witnesses and sufferers to follow and protect his own selfish ambitions. By his claims, this proclamation of false doctrine labeled as a debauchery towards politics should be used to demonstrate the carnal showings of vile nature in civics. This paper will describe the effects and ambitions of Mario Cuomo, the one who helped create, and spread, political cancer.