Criminal Threats/Trespass 62-year-old Thomas Miller made multiple threats towards a business on Oneida Street in Ashwaubenon, a small village located adjacent to Green Bay, The threats included references to bombing the business which resulted in a response from law enforcement. Upon receiving a harassment call from the business, officers initiated an investigation. Witnesses confirmed Miller's involvement in making threatening phone calls directed at the establishment. Miller was arrested shortly after. Specific Wisconsin statute sections (Wis. Stat. ) Miller violated are 947.012, 947.015, and 947.019. Wis. Stat. -. 947.012 addresses the unlawful use of a telephone and states, “Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor: …show more content…
With intent to frighten, intimidate, threaten or abuse, telephone another and uses any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggests any lewd or lascivious act.” By using a telephone to contact and threaten the business, Miller violated this statute. A class B misdemeanor in Wisconsin is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both. Wis. Stat. -. 947.015 addresses bomb scares, it states “Whoever intentionally conveys or causes to be conveyed any threat or false information, knowing such to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made to destroy any property by the means of explosives is guilty of a Class I felony. Miller violated this statute by threatening he had or had placed a bomb in the restaurant that was going to damage the property. A class I felony is punishable by a fine not to exceed $10,000 or imprisonment not to exceed 3 years and 6 months, or both. Wis. Stat. -. 947.019 addresses terrorist threats, it states “Whoever, under any of the following circumstances, threatens to cause the death of or bodily harm to any person or to damage any person's property is guilty of a Class I felony: (a) The actor intends to prevent the occupation of or cause the evacuation of a building, dwelling, school premises, vehicle, facility of public transportation, or place of public assembly or any room within a building, dwelling, or school …show more content…
I’d disagree, this is because while the law does restrict a small fraction of our freedom of speech, it is a necessary limitation to ensure public safety. I believe this is a similar restriction to Wis. Stat. 347.48 (2m) which addresses required seatbelt use when operating a vehicle. The reasoning behind Wis. Stat. 947.019 is to prevent individuals from making threats that cause fear, panic, or disruption to public safety. This statute aims to protect the community from the harmful effects of terrorist threats by deterring individuals from engaging in such behavior. By imposing felony charges, it sends a clear message that threatening behavior will not be tolerated and ensures swift and decisive action against those who pose a risk to public safety. The community is much safer and can be at ease due to this statute as it discourages this conduct. One might again argue that this infringes on our constitutional right to freedom of speech. And I would once again argue that it is a necessary restriction as society is better off with it than without it. An example of a similar restriction is Wis. Stat. 347.485 covers the required use of protective headgear while using a
Though the Kuehn v. Pub Zone and Soldano v. O’Daniels cases both involve attacks in a bar, one case rules in favor of the injured plaintiff and the other in favor of the owner-defendant. These rulings may initially seem contradictory, however, once the stories and the environments surrounding the attacks become clear, it becomes more obvious that one of the establishments holds more of a responsibility when it comes to the safety of their patrons. In the case of Kuehn v. Pub Zone, customer, Karl Kuehn, was assaulted in the bathroom of an establishment known to be frequented by a violent biker gang. The biker gang and its violent outbursts had become such a regular occurrence that a sign was even posted prohibiting entrance to the bar while wearing gang colors. On the day of Mr. Kuehn’s assault, members of the biker gang, wearing their gang colors, pushed passed the bouncer and entered the Pub Zone. Instead of calling the police or refusing service, the bartender decided to serve the group a drink, not only failing to enforce the Pub Zone’s own established rule, but also acting against it. This places the Pub Zone at fault for
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
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.
walking on the street and they are looking to find trouble. The code allows police officers to justify harassment and arrest. Also, this code allows schools to punish and suspend students from defiance. I will never understand how officers refuse to use protection against these kids. Isn’t that why we have officers, to protect us? How are officers allowed to do this? This code really bothers me because it’s not right and unacceptable. There is no need to harass an innocent individual just because they are of color and are walking on the
Steve Miller was born October 5, 1943 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Steve’s family was very involved with music. His mother was a jazz-influenced singer, and his father was a pathologist that very interested in the world of music. Dr. Miller was friends with many musicians which greatly aided in young Steve’s development in music. One of his father’s friends included Les Paul, who showed Steve some chords on a guitar at the age of five. Les Paul proved to be a very valuable mentor to Steve, and he became a good friend of the family. When Steve was seven his family moved to Dallas, where he was exposed to a different type of artists that usually did not visit Milwaukee. His father took him to see greats such as Hank Williams, Chuck Berry, and Carl Perkins. Steve was particularly drawn to T-Bone Walker, the father of Texas-style electric blues. This proved to be very influential in Steve’s life, and it is evident by the blues-sound that he exhibited in his guitar playing.
The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Pg.124) The Constitution of the United Bork also complained that Justice Douglas was being quite the alarmist by implying that the Griswald case would never be enforced. "There was, of course, no prospect that it would ever be enforced." (Pg. 133) It is not very assuring to my own peace of mind, when one defends an offensive law by stating that it's never going to be used. It only takes one ambitious politician to selectively enforce these laws for their own prejudice or gain.
Should the First Amendment stop protecting hate speech? In Derek Bok’s “Protecting Freedom of Expression on the Campus”, he argues that hate speech should be protected as censorship would be against the First Amendment. He declares “One reason why the power of censorship is so dangerous is that it is extremely difficult to decide when a particular communications is offensive enough to warrant prohibition or to weigh the degree is offensiveness against the potential value of communication.... if we were to forbid flags, it is only a short step to prohibiting offensive speakers” (Bok 67) What Bok is attempting to say is that we can technically declare anything as offensive. The idea of hate speech is varying on the opinion of a person rather than law.
While the opposing team fears that this law may bring more deaths, and will not solve any issues but create new ones, as well as make campuses an unsafe place for students and faculty. Majority of the students who attended universities or in general do not have a licenses to carry a weapon, but that still does not stop how unsafe people feel in classrooms, or in their dorms. In my opinions I am someone who oppose the campus carry law. I believe that weapons bring nothing but danger and fear, and many other students and professors feel the same way. I feel that if I ever got into a heated conversation with someone in a classroom or any place on campus and they had a weapon one them, but I or anyone else did not know, any situation could occur where my life or anyone else’s life would be in danger. I agree that It would limit me to talk freely and it would I feel that it is going against our First Amendment, which is the freedom of speech. I am glad that right now I am attending a community college, and campus carry will not be effective on my campus until next year in 2017. I didn’t know much about the campus carry law until I started reading about it, and it is very saddening to think that many of us Texans did not want this law to be passed and that we fought with many protests and letters, but yet the Texas Legislature did not listen to the voices that are actually suppose to matter, which is the peoples voice, but instead to choose to pass the law anyway due to some votes made by the House of Representatives. That is just some parts I feel that our government is flawed, we are the people and what we say should go, but our government is very strict and conservative. The campus carry law
Amendment one, freedom of speech is a very important factor for all citizens to have. Amendment one protects citizens to freely speak their mind without disturbing the educational process. The government may not put any consequences to any citizens from accessing information and freely speak. The government must protect citizens from unreasonable consequences, such as making signs, posting honestly, and letters that do no threat. The court case that involved amendment one is Tinker vs. Des Moines in 1964. Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to memorialize the Vietnam War. The principle, Des Moines suspened both of them because they refused to take them off. The court case was sent to the Supreme court because Des Moine interfered with Tinker’s right of freedom of speech. The ruling was seven to two in Tinkers favor. The Supreme court stated that students...
Law Enforcement Action Forum Newsletter. State of Michigan, City of Jackson, Oct 2001. Web. Oct. 2001
Brennan wrote in his brief for the majority that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and that, "the separation of legitimate from illegitimate speech calls for more sensitive tools than (Georgia) has supplied” (Oyez).
And even though the First Amendment grants us the freedom of speech, including such hate speech, there are limits. The federal and all state governments, including public colleges and universities and private schools that accept federal financial aid, cannot unnecessarily regulate speech, with the following exceptions: “obscenity, figh...
When the individual gets attacked verbally because of their controversial statements, they claim that they had the right to speak their mind no matter how disturbing their words were. They use the First Amendment as a cover for their wrong-doings, and that is never okay. They need to be educated on what they can and cannot say. Just because the First Amendment guarantees a person the freedom of speech, does not mean that they are entitled to say whatever they please. The article “Freedom of Speech” explains if an individual were to use “fighting words” then they are automatically not covered under their First Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in the case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that “fighting words” were not constitutional, so they would not be protected under the First Amendment (2). Many people misunderstand that much of their opinions that they speak consists of words that are unclear. More than half of the time the words they use in their statements are considered to be fighting words, for they are rude and ignorant. There is no need for the obscene words that they use to be protected under the First Amendment. They must become aware of their lack of knowledge for what “fighting words” are; furthermore, they
This gives another reason why these acts go against our constitution and the people's rights. Since the Congress cannot make laws reducing the “ freedom of speech or of the press” these acts don't take away the rights, they just limit them a lot. “Provided that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offense against the law, during the time it shall be in force.” Even though the laws expired or became out of date you could be jailed if you didn't follow the rule anyway. This rebuttal is a pretty big eye opener for both sides argument, it shows that it's not taking the right away, but it's limiting it so much that it might as well not be a law.
I am a student at Grandview High School in Hillsboro, Missouri and I am beyond excited for the opportunity to attend Missouri State University. I am a straight-A student and high-achieving athlete at Grandview. I have always dreamed of working in film, digital media, and computer science. At Missouri State, my ability to pursue these dreams would become a reality.