Terminiello v. Chicago
Issues:
1. Was Terminiello's right to free speech, which is protected under the Federal Constitution, violated, as applied in this case?
2. Was the Chicago ordinance, as defined in this case, unconstitutional in its contents because it failed to provide support for the First Amendment?
3. Was the inclusion of Terminiello's speech as a violation of the Chicago ordinance on disorderly conduct unconstitutional?
1.
Facts:
1.
Assumption/Application:
1.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
The logical consequence of the application of the Stromberg case ruling to the Terminiello case was the reversal of the conviction. The Supreme Court did not challenge the constitutionality of the Chicago ordinance, but stated that in this case, free speech can not be denied to anyone even if such speech is considered to be provocative and unpopular in nature. The specifics of the Terminiello conviction were not explicit and, therefore, impenetrable by the inquiries of the Supreme Court. Without exact articulation of the conviction the Court could not dissect the verdict into parts that were applicable to Terminiello's charge and conviction.
Supreme Court of the United States
Terminiello v. Chicago J. Jackson, dissenting
Issue:
1. Does the Supreme Court have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of a case, that is brought up for review as it is presented at its face value, or should it consider the ultimate impact that it could have ...
... middle of paper ...
...any historical accounts that are utilized as references.
2. Justice Jackson contends that Terminiello's style and use of derogatory terms and the tone of the speech likened him to the Fascists of Europe.
3. Terminiello is viewed as having escaped conviction due to an interpretational difference
among the justices.
Conclusion:
Justice Jackson's disagreement on the ruling of the Terminiello case is supported by many historical examples which demonstrate that freedom of speech is not an absolute right under the law. Although Terminiello had a right to exercise his right under the First Amendment, had the majority carefully considered this principle it should have rejected his claim. In this case, the majority's treatment of Terminiello's case skirted the real issue and did not benefit from true constitutional interpretation.
The impact that this case had on the Constitution and Amendments was that of determining if this officer had done a search beyond the demands of the original search, and if he had violated the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments.
In the case of U.S. v Jones, the judicial branch had to address the questionable topic of whether or not the Fourth Amendment was violated (). Since this case was not black and white and did bring up many questions as to what was constitutional, the judges had to use judicial review. Judicial review is the power that allows judges to interpret the meaning of laws (Class, March 13). Once a law is understood a certain way, the people must follow it (Class, __). The U.S. v Jones case deals with the Bill of Rights (United, 1). This is due to the circumstance that the Fourth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights document stating that “searches and seizures” cannot be done without a warrant (Class,___). The case of U.S. v Jones was about the violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment when a GPS device was placed on his jeep without his consent because he was suspected of drug possession (United, 1). Since judges have the power to informally amend the Constitution using judicial review (Class, ___), they must take into consideration many contributing elements when making a decision.
Johnson and his lawyers were dissatisfied with this decision and made an appeal to the Fifth Texas Supreme Judicial District. This appeal, made on May 8, 1985 would be titled as Texas vs. Johnson. The defense argued that Johnson was prosecuted in violation of the first Amendment, clearly states that no law may take away a person's freedom of speech or expression, and of the Bill of Rights and the free speech clause of the Texas Constitution. Johnson argued that in his opinion, flag burning is part of freedom o...
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
Alonso, Karen. Schenck v. United States: restrictions on free speech. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 1999. Print.
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
Racism Speech by Charles R. Lawrence In the following essay, Charles R. Lawrence encompasses a number of reasons why racist speech should not be protected by the First Amendment. In this document, he exhibits his views on the subject and how he feels the society should confront these problems. In this well- written article, he provides strong evidence to prove his point and to allow the reader to see all aspects of the issue. On Racist Speech Charles Lawrence has been active in his use of the First Amendment rights since he was a young boy.
...ts, detailed explanation, and the First Amendment to show how the policy of the armbands goes against the First Amendment. As for Justice Hugo Black, he uses facts and other case decisions to explain why the policy is permissible under the First Amendment. Yet, Justice Black does not explain, in elaborate detail, the facts included nor a strong reasoning behind why he believes the policy is allowed. While Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black did include strong points, Justice Abe Fortas was more convincing with his argument. For Justice Abe, every point connected, and the main points introduced were further developed through the case facts, the District Court’s decision, and other case decisions. There is a fluency that Justice Fortas had, which was not present in Justice Black’s dissenting opinion. Justice Black seemed jumpy, and his organization was confusing.
The Schenck court case of 1919 developed out of opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I (1914-1918). Antiwar sentiment in the United States was particularly strong among socialists, German Americans, and religious groups that traditionally supported antiviolence. In response to this outlook, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. This law provided heavy fines and jail terms for interfering with U.S. military operations or for causing or attempting to cause insubordination or disloyalty in the military. In addition, the act made it illegal to obstruct recruitment efforts of the U.S. armed forces.
Kent Greenfield, in his article “The Limits of Free Speech,” questions whether the First Amendment is correctly interpreted. Greenfield’s purpose is to share different occasions with the readers, where the amendments true purpose is in question. He adopts a passionate yet indignant tone and uses different literary techniques such story-telling, an appeal to character, an informal voice and the use of repetition and rhetorical questions in order to display to the audience the true purpose of the First Amendment.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
...t was erroneous. The Freedom of Speech decides whether or not if SFP is guilty or not, so the Freedom of Speech have rules that are unheard of, but they are still there.
views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,
Topic: Do you believe that free speech as proscribed under the first amendment of the constitution should be limited?