Reply with 150 words
I found a great article in a law review right from Harvard Law regarding freedom of speech and regarding the First Amendment. This law review broke down those speakers and listener can and many times even do receive more protection for their “speech, press, and expressive association under state constitutional law, state and federal statutory law, and state common law than under the First Amendment.” (Harvard Law. 2021)
The law review really breaks down what exactly freedom of speech is and what it requires in order to be sustained in cases. It presumes that only legal mechanism protects freedom of speech in the United States, and it is only because the Supreme Court has recognized the federal courts do not possess monopoly over interpretation and enforcement of the rights to freedom of speech.
This review focuses on protection of the First Amendment and misunderstands how freedom of speech is actually understood and legally protected in the United States. This law review was great to break down exactly what the First Amendment is and how it is much more than having the ability to speak with the freedom we were given. It provides the information when working on case review of anything that uses the First Amendment as the reason the case is there to begin with.
References:
Harvard Law School Law Review. The Non-First Amendment Law Freedom of Speech. 134 Harv. L. Rev. 2299. www.harvardlawreveiw.org/2021/05/the-non-first-amendement-law-of-freedom-of-speech. May 10, 2021.
Reply with 150 words
The Supreme Court has declined to punish violations in the areas of Federal Substantive Criminal law and Constitutional remedies when the violation was found to be legal and failed to display anti-social intention. The precedence has been for the court to be more lenient in cases where offenders have conformed to society and showed no ill content.
I was able to easily find this article through Harvard Law Review. It’s always interesting to see how sentences for similar cases can differ greatly and to take into consideration how the social implications of their intent are often seen to be the cause of those differences. This article is a great example of that. The intentions behind Sunny Bonner’s actions can be seen as anti-social in nature due to the fact she was advocating for an illicit substance. However, I feel the writing on her sign “Please consider compassion…” clearly demonstrates a noble intent to benefit society.
Reference:
Huq, A. Z., & Lakier, G. (2018, April). Apparent fault – Harvard Law Review. Retrieved November 28, 2021, from https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1525-1597_Online.pdf.
The post Reply with 150 words I found a great article in a law appeared first on PapersSpot.
