Filming Police is Your Right

Some free speech advocates are saying that a judges recent ruling on the right to film police officers on the street will not set any legal precedent, but is still considered to be out of line. U.S. district judge Mark Kearney ruled that citizens are not protected by the constitution when they film police officers unless doing it for the purpose of criticizing police activity. The ruling comes from the Philadelphia resident who claim that their rights were violated by an officers who took their cameras for recording them in action. The decision is contrary to the policy that in Philadelphia citizens are allowed to record officers in public for whatever reason. The ruling could become dangerous, however, if it influences future decisions.  However, the rest of the country — including higher courts, the Department of Justice and your average citizen — finds filming public police events to be an act of free speech. In the light of recent police brutality videos you can see how most police would want to suppress anyone trying to videotape any wrong doing that officers could be up to.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/filming-police-isnt-a-first-amendment-right-federal-judge-rules_us_56d5d57ce4b03260bf783785

State v. Mann

The first  Moot court groups argued the State vs Mann case, where a slave trying to flee her master was shot in the back and severely injured. The two sides made very strong cases as State was up first. State's opening argument was that slavery as a whole was unconstitutional and that Mann was not only a murderer but did not have the right to treat his property in the way that he did. Unfortunately for them, slavery is not directly denounced by the constitution, the slave did not die, and according State argued that this went against the party’s religious beliefs as well as arguing not that slavery should be abolished, as it was legal in North Carolina at the time, but that slaves are human and should be treated as such. Mann on the other hand argued that the slave was property therefore he had the right to do whatever he wanted with her and that he should not have to pay the fine. In the final ruling, Supreme Judge Thomas Ruffin stated that while personally he ruled in favor of Lydia he had to remain impartial to the law and therefore ruled in favor of Mann from the lawful standpoint, and the fine was overruled.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

In March of 1895 Dred Scott and his owner, John Sanford moved to Illinois which was a free state at the time. Due to the fact that  Scott was a slave in a free state he believed that he should have been able to declare emancipation from his owner. Scott brought his case to court to try to gain the freedom he believed he deserved. It was also argued on the side of Dred Scott that the North West Ordinance proved that he should be a freed slave. On the side of Sanford, it was argued that  he may have been a slave in a free state but was still owned in another state therefore he is still the property of that owner whoever they be. In the end Chief Justice Roger B. Taney decided in favor of John Sanford on the basis that no pure blooded African person, or their descendants, would ever be citizens of the United States and there for could not successfully grant him freedom.

Plessy v. Ferguson- The Dissenting Opinion

When Justice Harlan made is decision in Plessy v. Ferguson it was not the majority opinion. Also known as the "dissenting opinion" he believed that the ruling in the court case was not correct, that the idea of separate but equal was a violation of the 14th Amendment. Personally I believe that he wrote out his losing argument so that he could try and spread that this was a 14th amendment violation as well as to try and gather supporters who believed the same thing he does. By keeping his opinion to himself he would of suppressed the thought that would be a huge step in the fight for civil rights. I believe he made a good argument which I think that  people in 2016 would react the same as I did, the times have changed since that era and I feel that if this verdict were to happen now there would be a larger group on the side of justice Harlan. However in the year 1896, due to the fact that slavery had ended very recently,the public opinion would be different; especially if you were in the south. As a country the U.S. come a long way from these days and I believe occurrences like this did nothing but help everyday people to see how wrong slavery and discrimination actually were and still are. Had Judge Harlan and others been too afraid to speak their minds, who knows how long it would've taken our country to get where it is today. I believe his opinion shed light on the path of the law because it brought up the fact that separate but equal was not in fact what it pertained to be- equal.

Hogan with Big Win in Court

Hulk Hogan has recently been in the news for a sex tape that was recorded of him and his best friends wife. Gawker got their hands on the video and released a length story titled "even for a minute, watching hulk hogan have sex in a canopy bed in not safe for work but watch it anyways." A Florida Jury found that Gawker had invaded hogans privacy by publishing the clip and awarded hogan a massive $115 million. We ask you to protect something that some of you may find unpleasant,” Gawker attorney Michael Sullivan told the jury in closing arguments. “To write, to speak, to think about all topics, to hold public figures accountable. It is right in the long run for our freedoms.” There is somewhat of an anything goes when it comes to filing celebrities these days especially now with this incident with Hogan. It is another case of a forward hitting news outlet trying to push the envelope but by doing so taking it to far which for Gawker it could cost them $115 dollars.

Trump being Trump

Donald Trump has recently started to be accused of inciting at his rallies to try and provoke his already very eccentric followers behind him. Many time during this years campaign you've heard Trump at some point say something about a Muslim or a Mexican trying to stir the pot with his supporters. An "Incitement" is speech that causes "a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. Throughout this election you see at rallies where Trump will get on the mic like a dictator and yell some provocative comments or if there is a protester you will see him urge people in the crowd to kick them out. What the issues are is not that he is kicking people out, he has all the right to kick them out but he it must be in a lawful peaceful manner. In this case Trump may not be Criminally responsible but should be held accountable for his actions against these protesters. Respecting everyone's first amendment in the marketplace of ideas. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis stated that the best antidote to false, even dangerous speech is not suppression, but more speech.

Political Speech Protected Even If You Don't Speak

Recently the U.S. Supreme court sided with a former police officer who was demoted by his supervisors for what they believed to be unsolicited political activity off duty. In the 6-2 decision of Heffernan v. City of Paterson which was a dispute over the reach of first amendment for public employees. The main issue here was the that judges had to decide whether the First Amendment shields who aren't engaging in protected political conduct but are "perceived" by their superiors to be doing so. What caused this whole issue was that during a mayoral election in Paterson Heffernan was friends of someone who wished to unseat mayor Jose "Joey" Torres, he was spotted by a member of the mayors security detail picking up a lawn sign not for himself but for his be ridden mother and a day later was demoted to foot patrol for "overt involvement" in a political campaign.

MATT MCCLAIN/THE WASHINGTON POST VIA GETTY IMAGES

What the Supreme Court concluded was that Heffernans First Amendment right didn't rest on whether he was engaged in constitutionally protected political activity. The court decided the constitutional question while there was a big hole in the case: whether Heffernan was punished not for supporting a rival but because of under a "neutral policy prohibiting police officers from overt involvement in any political campaign. With the lack of clarity the case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings. Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the majority stating that he would have ruled "factual impossibility" of suing over the violation of a right you never publicly exercised. It shows that everywhere now you are unable to hide from the First Amendment even when your actions do not end up relating to the First Amendment as you see here with Heffernan.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-first-amendment-motive_us_571f77ebe4b0b49df6a8f081