California Waste Plant Minions Suppress First Amendment Infowars Special Report
California Waste Plant Minions Suppress First Amendment Infowars Special Report videos.. Please click here to subscribe to my channel.. California Waste Plan...
By: Economics
Link:
California Waste Plant Minions Suppress First Amendment Infowars Special Report - Video
The Pitkin County Republicans recently held a civics-writing contest for Aspen High School. The following essay earned first place and was written by Elizabeth de Wetter, who received $250 for her piece.
Freedom of speech The first and greatest amendment
Though all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights play an important role in our society, I value the First Amendment most highly. Not only does the freedom of speech protect our right to say what we want, but it also allows us to read, write, broadcast, and sing what we want.
While the other amendments also protect important rights, and will aid me at some point, they do not significantly affect my life. Since I have never been accused of a crime, sent to jail, or summoned to court, the Fourth and Eighth Amendments do not really apply to me at this point in my life. As I live with my parents, and our country is not currently involved in a war on U.S. soil, I do not feel the need to worry about housing troops, so the Third Amendment does not concern me. Finally, since I am under the age limit to own a gun, the Second Amendment is equally irrelevant. Even though all of the amendments are important, Because of the importance of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment, I believe it plays the most significant role in my life as an American.
Freedom of speech provides one of the most crucial forms of self-expression and can replace violence. We can easily see the effects of oppression in countries where violence occurs on a daily basis, and it makes sense. People want change, and without freedom to say or write what they want, violence sometimes seems like the only option. By protecting freedom of speech, our government allows everyone in the United States the opportunity to express their opinions in peaceful ways rather than resorting to violence.
Freedom of speech allows each of us to express opinions, persuade others, and ultimately change the world. As a female, I feel lucky to live in a county where I can show my face, go to school, get an education, and express my opinions on problems with which I disagree. I cannot imagine how frustrated I would feel if I could not change the reality of my life using words. When Malala Yousafzai spoke out, she was nearly killed by the Taliban, and this kind of oppression is the tragic reality of many women. Unlike oppressed women around the world, in the U.S., our words can create change without backlashing in the form of violence.
Simple, every-day tasks such as answering questions in school or coming to a solution in politics would be very difficult without protection from the First Amendment. Problems usually have more than a single right answer, yet if we were not allowed to express our opinions, one answer might be the only result to conflict. Sometimes the most meaningful solutions come from disagreements between people, and when they can finally see eye-to-eye, better answers to the problem are found. Without the First Amendment, our country may not have passed the other amendments. Laws are made of words and when only certain words are allowed, only some voices can be heard, and a limited number of people can speak, the solutions that result are just as restricted.
Unlike some rights to speech, the first amendment allows us to express ourselves during both good and bad times. In extreme wartime conditions, governments sometimes prohibit their citizens from showing any self-expression in the form music, dancing, singing, laughing, or even smiling, and yet we can do all of theses things and talk about them afterward without punishment. Though our opinions are not always positive and many times, when we express ourselves, we talk about something negative that needs to be changed, our words can change reality, and to me, the greatest freedom is to be myself and be able to make a change for others and myself through words instead of violence.
While all of the amendments to the Bill of Rights play an important role in our county, the First Amendment provides me with one of the most meaningful freedoms as a female student and citizen of the United States. Freedom of speech allows me to create change in non-violent ways, and express myself without worrying about the consequences of self-expression. For the freedom to express my views, make a difference, and have the same rights as everyone else in this country, I am immensely grateful.
See the rest here:
Students essay on First Amendment wins top prize
B. Scott arrives to the 25th Annual GLAAD in Los Angeles in April 2014.
FORTUNE -- In August 2013, transgender television personality B. Scott filed a suit against Black Entertainment Television and its parent company Viacom Inc., claiming that the network had discriminated against him based on his gender identity and sexual orientation.
The lawsuit stemmed from Scott's appearance as a style correspondent at the 2013 BET awards preshow. After his first segment of the night, in which he appeared with heavy makeup and heels, the network told him to tone down his look and change into masculine clothing that was "different from the androgynous style he's used to ... and comfortable with," according to the complaint.
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge decided the case Wednesday, and it came down to theFirst Amendment; not Scott's freedom to speech and expression, but Viacom's (VIA).The court found that BET's decision as to how Scott would appear on camera was part of the network's creative process of developing and broadcasting the show, which is protected by the First Amendment.
MORE:Americans have fallen in love with real estate once again
The case is by no means the first in which a media company has used the First Amendment as a defenseagainst lawsuits alleging discrimination. The order on Thursday cites several other instances.
There was the racial discrimination case against ABC for its failure to feature non-white contestants on The Bachelorand The Bachelorette. A federal district court in Tennessee dismissed the matter after finding that "casting decisions are a necessary component of any entertainment show's creative content." The court said that "the plaintiffs seek to drive an artificial wedge between casting decisions and the end product, which itself is indisputably protected as speech by the First Amendment."
And there was the lawsuit filed against Warner Bros. by a former writers' assistant for the television show Friendswho asserted that the use of sexually coarse and vulgar language and conduct by the show's writers constituted sexual harassment. The Supreme Court of California in that case held that "the First Amendment protects creativity."
The case thatheld greatestprecedent is a matter in which a group of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish Americans sought to participate in Boston's St. Patrick's Day parade. The U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately heard the case, ruled that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for Massachusetts to require private citizens "who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message the organizers do not wish to convey."
The defendants in these cases arguedthat they didn't care what their employees or participants are in reality -- gay, straight, male, female -- but rather how they appear. "They say, 'We are entitled to create a program that looks the way we want it to look,'" says Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law. And the courts have agreed with them.
Read more:
To kill bias suits, companies lean on the First Amendment
The Supreme Court often takes on difficult and controversial cases, ones over which reasonable people can and do disagree. But the case of an Ohio statute that bans campaign lies Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus is not a close call. The law is a direct affront to the First Amendment, and a matter that anyone who values free speech should be happy to see invalidated.
The case arose from a dispute between a one-time Ohio state representative, Steven Driehaus, and the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group.
During Mr. Driehaus' re-election effort, the group planned a billboard campaign accusing Mr. Driehaus of supporting taxpayer-funded abortions because he was in favor of Obamacare.
Mr. Driehaus moved to block the group from putting up the ads. The Susan B. Anthony List challenged the law, but was rebuffed because it could not show it had suffered harm.
Although the billboard ads didn't go up, and Mr. Driehaus was not re-elected, the matter did not stop there.
The Susan B. Anthony List then sought to bring the matter before the Supreme Court, claiming its free-speech rights remain under threat because of the law.
The details of the dispute are interesting, but hardly matter. The simple fact is that laws restricting political speech are inconsistent with the First Amendment.
The Ohio statute see codes.ohio.gov/orc/3517.21 bars a range of election-related claims and speech, including false statements about a candidate's military or educational record, or what professional licenses a candidate holds.
Those are easy claims to investigate, but how does one evaluate whether a campaign ad, sound bite, or debate claim violates the provision barring "a false statement concerning the voting records of a candidate or public official"?
America's colorful political history contains many famous exaggerations and falsehoods, which usually haunt those who make them. But innumerable claims are grounded in political viewpoint, interpretation, and shades of meaning. It is impossible to gauge their truth or falsity.
Read the original:
First thing, First Amendment
Political Science: Const Law: Civil Liberties
Investigation of the Supreme Court #39;s interpretation of the First Amendment, rights of the accused, and the right to privacy. Prerequisite: POLS 021.
By: UVM Continuing Ed
Follow this link:
Political Science: Const Law: Civil Liberties - Video