Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Discuss the right to freedom of expression
1st amendment
Electoral.college easays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There is a clear difference between protesting and breaking the law. Everyone knows that protesting is part of the first amendment’s freedom of expression, and some people will sometimes take advantage of this freedom but they may end up breaking the law. Peaceful resistance to laws mostly has a negative impact on a free society. Resistance to a country’s laws is not a good idea and is not good for society. Although many people hate to admit it, President Donald Trump was elected to the presidency fairly, by the electoral college. This means that he is legitimate and that any laws he proposes or passes must be abided by all citizens of the United States. Any person who refuses to follow a law passed during this presidency will technically be committing a crime. …show more content…
Protests are used to make a point and try to make the voices of minorities heard. Some minorities get out of hand and begin breaking laws. This could negatively impact the free society we live in because it may end up causing officials to pass laws which are stricter. Stricter laws could potentially limit the freedoms of everybody living in the country. Freedoms should not be limited just because some people cannot accept the fact that we have officials who represent and make decisions for us. That is the whole point of the representative democracy that the United States in run under. We have representatives in order to limit the powers of the People because giving them too much would probably cause the country to fail as a whole. If someone is miraculously not penalized for resisting a law, it would set an example and make other people think that they too can break laws if they want. Law-breaking would ruin the flow and unity that the United States has built up over the years which is why it shouldn’t be a
people might say that peaceful protests negatively impacts society because it wastes time, and it never works. For example, on January 21,2017, there was a women's march on washington in repsonse to donald trump's win. They exercised their first amendment rights and statements to let him know women have rights. Donald Trump was recognized for his comments about women. The women rights movement caused people to have a different perspective about them. But, i don't believe that peaceful protests negatively effect society because According to data compiled by Erica Chenoweth at the University of Denver and Jeremy Pressman at the University of Connecticut, at least 3.3 million people participated in over 500 Women's marches across the US. That is a huge turnout for solidarity for women. The effect of the marches probably will be there will be more women's
Around the world many people wonder why people choose to protest topics they disagree with. Protesting can change political views, help society, stop government actions, and most importantly save lives. Protests are normally started by a person or people wanting to make a change and stand up for what they believe in. People have been protesting for years because it is effective.
There are certain skills and attributes that enable fences (or thieves) to cope with the economic, legal, and moral problems associated with participating in illegal activities. The main requirements mentioned in the reading include larceny sense, connections to the underworld and beyond, and charisma.
Over 4,124,543 people in America have participated in protests. Since so many people across the country participate in these rallies, one may ask why they protest. They do it for many different reasons. People protest to end injustices, to support a cause, to make their views be heard, to be patriotic, and to help humanity. Protests are effective when many people come together and strike, forcing the government to take action.
The NSW Criminal Justice System is adequate when dealing with young offenders; however, like any legal system it does have its limitations. The NSW Criminal justice system does uphold the rights of the young offender by providing juveniles with special courts under the Childrens Court Act 1987 (NSW) by providing special protections under the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child; the recognising of culpability in regards to the age of the young offender by implementing doli incapax and by arranging a variety of diversionary programs and alternative punishments. However, the limitations of the NSW Criminal justice system in relation to young offenders is Doli Incapax in the The Childrens (Criminal Proceedings Act 1987) NSW which fails to recognise more serious offenders and The Young Offenders Act allowance for youth justice conferencing is not being cultivated for a wide enough range of offenders, leading the exclusion of some young offenders from the benefits that conferencing can offer.
In America, protest has been used throughout history as a vehicle to change. Protests bring attention to issues that would or could be overlooked or ignored. A current protest receiving national attention in our media is the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest. The Occupy Wall Street protest, along with other Occupy branch protests are essentially ineffective protests. When compared to successful protests in the past, they are not having as much success gaining public support. There are many reasons this could be the case. There is no clearly defined goal or a specified outcome resulting from the protests. They are managing their funds inefficiently and in many cities they are creating more problems than they are solving.
The Canadian criminal justice system’s focus on legal guilt holding precedence over factual guilt supports the rights outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; sections 1 and 7 to 14 because focus on legal guilt requires law enforcement to better follow strict adherence to the legal rights of each citizen if they wish to introduce them to the criminal justice system.
Larceny is that the transport of products or cash to a person without his consent, with intent to deprive permanently control and physical possession of the commodity or money. This crime needs carrying or moving stolen product , even if only a really slight one. It conjointly needs the legend of the property , declarative asserting . The intent to permanently deprive the victim of the property is important element of the crime and distinguishes it from an outlet with the intention therefore simply take the property. If larceny is committed by use of violence or threat of violence , crime is named theft. robbery also includes certain specialised categories like carjacking . wherever robbery needs the use of violence or threat of immediate violence, a separate crime referred to as extortion is a theft that's done under the threat of future violence or alternative future damage .
However, they broke the law by murdering a person and since they are arguing that that they had a good cause and reason to kill them they feel that they should walk free from any consequences at all. These protesters feel that they are making a difference by delegitimizing the president instead of uniting behind him. These protesters are burning and destroying property around these large cities, causing nothing but damage to their own local communities, helping nobody in the long run. If anything, their actions qualify as civil disobedience because they are causing destruction in the cities and believe they are helping their cause of trying to revolt under President Trump. Peacefully protesting is perfectly legal and often times promoted, but what these people are doing is classified as civil disobedience and is destroying our cities and tearing our country apart.
In the USA, the average male breaks the law at least three times a day without them knowing they break the law. says civil liberties lawyer, Harvey Silverglate, who wrote the book three felonies a day. Are laws a higher priority than human rights? Is breaking a law like shoplifting for food when they don’t have access to it good or bad? What if an organization is doing something immoral and it’s illegal to share?
Augustine’s quote in saying, “an unjust law is no law at all,” and, as Thoreau would have said it, “transgressed at once,” I firmly set my foot down and agree with them completely with them in terms of how unjust laws shouldn’t even be considered laws at all. Like Martin Luther King once said, “I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law (BrainyQuotes). Never let the law fool you into thinking it has absolute control over actions, you have freedom as a citizen of the United States and you should use that freedom wisely and to your absolute advantage. You have nothing to lose but your self esteem and
I believe that peacefully resisting the law negatively impacts our society. Any resistance to the law can turn violent very fast, even if it is 'peaceful' resisting of the law. The laws of the United States of America are in place to protect us and allow us to have freedom. When people begin to resist and fight against these laws, our freedom and safety becomes jeopardized. America, the land of the free, is a place for people to be able to have freedom and feel safe over the time period of their lives, but this cannot happen when people are disobeying or opposing the law.
We have the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, and with those it’s unnecessary to break the law. Although often times it takes many years to pass or change a law, if things happened too quickly there would be more mistakes and rash decisions.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
The New South Wales Criminal trial and sentencing process is adequate in balancing the rights of the victims, offenders and society however like any legal system is does have its faults. The options in the trial and sentencing process are stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 and the Crimes (sentencing procedure) Act 1999 which features the use of charge negotiation, rehabilitation, mitigating factors and intensive corrective orders.