Normally, freedom and liberty go hand in hand. Last week in in Liberty New York however, this was not the case. In May 2012, Willian Barboza was fined for speeding in the town of Liberty, New York. William Barboza paid the fine through the mail, but chose to write “F*** Your Sh***y Town B****es in the center of the ticket. Barboza also crossed out the word “Liberty” and replaced it with “tyranny” at the top of the payment form. The court rejected his payment, and instead ordered him to appear before court and he was subsequently arrested. Barboza was charged with violating New York’s “aggravated harassment” statute. The aggravated harassment statute restricts free speech in cases where a citizen has intent to “annoy, threaten or alarm another
person, communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm…” The charges against William Barboza were dropped in 2013, with a municipal court judge not even regarding it necessary to cite a previous case, deciding that it was incredibly obvious that Barboza’s speech was constitutionally protected. Nevertheless, Barboza still decided to file a first amendment lawsuit against Liberty with the help of the the New York Civil Liberties Union. As it turns out, the constitutionality of the aggravated harassment statute had been under fire long before William Barboza decided to express his anger over a traffic ticket. In 1997, according to NYCLU.org, a federal court judge found the law to be “utterly repugnant to the first amendment of the United States constitution and also unconstitutional for vagueness.” Six years later, the New York court of appeals ruled that the aggressive harassment statute was unconstitutional if it was used in cases where the speech in question was merely offensive or crude. The court therefore decided that Barboza was exercising his constitutional right to freedom of speech and that the right to criticize and express frustration with the government is a vital part of the constitution. Barboza’s words did not convey an immediate threat or danger, and were instead an expression of frustration over government activity. The court also held that the town of Liberty is to be put on trial for not training its law enforcement employees properly, and not educating them on the proper understanding e of the aggressive harassment statute.
Renee Heikamp, 19, and case worker from the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS), Angie Martin, were charged with criminal negligence resulting in the 1997 death of newborn baby, Jordan Heikamp. The charges were dropped shortly after Jordan’s death, due to a lack of evidence from the investigation of a 63-day inquest. (CBC, 2001). Renee Heikamp and her baby were residing at the Anduhyaun shelter that services Aboriginal women fleeing abuse during the time of his death. Jordan Heikamp had starved to death, weighing only 4 pounds, 4 ounces less than what he weighed at his pre-mature birth, in May 1997; a photograph shown to witnesses at the inquest revealed the corpse of the baby who was little more than a skeleton.
Nimi Feghabo is an Atlanta-based consultant in Capgemini’s Custom Software Development service line. She has worked and acquired knowledge in many different industries spanning from Accounting to the Legal Industry. She brings significant leadership experience along with a proven track record. Prior to Capgemini, she has had experience in various industries which include legal, manufacturing, and international professional services. Her contributions include software implementation, ERP development, and facilitating changes. Through these projects, she has gained valuable insight and is able to develop transformative solutions into an effective facilitation strategy.
Robert Baltovich was wrongly convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain, in Scarborough, Canada. He was arrested on November 19, 1990, and charged for first-degree murder. On March 31, 1992, he was convicted of second-degree murder. Finally, on April 22, 2008, he was found not guilty of the murder.
Milwaukee teacher Katherine Gonzalez had a twisted way of helping her 11-year-old "chronically depressed" student cheer up.
Friedman, L. S. (2010). What Is the State of Civil Liberties in the United States?. Civil liberties (pp. 11-49). Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
In Eric Foner’s book, The Story of American Freedom, he writes a historical monograph about how liberty came to be. In the book, his argument does not focus on one fixed definition of freedom like others are tempted to do. Unlike others, Foner describes liberty as an ever changing entity; its definition is fluid and does not change in a linear progress. While others portray liberty as a pre-determined concept and gradually getting better, Foner argues the very history of liberty is constantly reshaping the definition of liberty, itself. Essentially, the multiple and conflicting views on liberty has always been a “terrain of conflict” and has changed in time (Foner xv).
I feel inspired and patriotic every time I see a car’s back bumper sticker featuring an American flag stating, “Freedom Isn’t Free!” The moral clarity of those words rings as true as the Liberty Bell. Those Americans that do not fathom the significance of the motto Freedom Isn’t Free suffer from the very problematic “victim/slave mentality,” which ultimately will become a future reality should more citizens not heed the simple message the sage language conveys. Yes it indeed bears repeating, “Freedom Is Not Free!” Its acquisition from King George’s England involved struggle, its maintenance throughout the first two and a quarter centuries of our Great Republic required sacrifice and its continuation demands perseverance. Wise people fully realize that struggle, sacrifice and perseverance are the vital characteristics of freedom, democracy and independence.
In the twenty century, the U.S society was in the period of tending to be a human base society. The laws in America were introduced to create a fair and regulated society for its citizens. The First and Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution granted that the U.S citizens have the freedom of speech. And the New York State had its law of Criminal Anarchy Act since 1902 for “organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means (n.p).” The citizen in the any state of the U.S should always both obey the state law and follow the national constitution. Otherwise, the citizen would get corresponding punishment for jail, community service or even death for most states. However, the case of Gitlow vs New York happened in 1925 that majorly argued about the U.S citizens’ guaranteed freedom of speech in the First Amendment of Constitution and the New York State’s Criminal Anarchy Act.
In America we are given certain rights by the government to follow. Such as, the first Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.” So, this right is given to us as Americans we should be able to say and do as we please. Yet, what the amendment fails to leave out is that we are not allowed to infringe on our fellow Americans rights to do the same. In, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Larry took the First Amendment right to a new level. When examining Larry Flynt, there were mixed opinions between the masses, some said he was a crusader for the First Amendment, while others said he was a horrible smut peddler. Larry Flynt unpleasantly exploited and abused
Everyday we have the chance to make her own opinions and give reason to our own voice. We have the chance to live in a country that encourages freedom in society, which separate ourselves from any restrictions imposed upon by authority, actions or any political views. liberty is the power we possess to act as we please through freedom and independence. But what happens when we choose to give away our basic liberties for temporary safety? Benjamin Franklin once stated, “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Those who decide to give away their personal freedoms for something that is temporary do not see the value in the long-lasting gift called freedom. In
America is one word that brings the hope of freedom to many people around the world. Since the United States’ humble beginnings freedom has remained at the core of its ideologies and philosophies. People of all races, nations, and tongues have found refuge in America. The National Anthem proclaims, “…land of the free, and home of the brave” (Key, 1814). But has America been consistently a land of the free? Unfortunately freedom has not always reigned. There is a constant struggle to overcome fear and prejudice in order to provide a true land of freedom. In times of heightened tension, the masses of common people seek to find a scapegoat. Often, this scapegoat is a minority with ties to current negative events. As fear uncontrollably grows, it can cause people to allow and commit unspeakable atrocities.
What better way to represent freedom than the Statue of Liberty? The Statue of Liberty is the first attraction that catches the eyes as immigrants set sail to America. Bloomberg wants to remind everyone of their rights and freedom. Most specially, the Muslims rights and freedom. Also, Mayor Bloomberg invited other Pastors and Fathers of churches in New York to join him on stage. His speech took place on Governors island, which is where the earliest settlers and millions of immigrants first came to New York. The most effective example Bloomberg uses is the 1657 Flushing Remonstrance. “A group of non-Quakers in queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion.” Almost 350 years later, and we’re still denying others their freedom of religion? Bloomberg compares the people denying the mosque to times when religious freedom was not protected in New York. Bloomberg really empathized his connection with his audience. He used the words “our,” “ourselves,” “us,” and “we” several times. Mayor Bloomberg persuaded his audience through the setting of his speech, and through many different rhetorical
Values some take for granted within this society today were ignored wholesale by a tyrannical colonial authority, and the people of this land rose up, shook off the chains of oppression, and set out to devise a new governmental system under which they could live rather freely. In his iconic “Four Freedoms” speech, America’s 32nd president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, outlined said values, stating that all should enjoy “freedom of speech and expression...freedom...to worship God in [their] own way” and “ a healthy peacetime life” (46). The importance of the concept of free speech and equality to the American identity cannot be understated, as it truly the foundation upon which much of this society rests. In the United states, it is instilled in us that from birth each human is bestowed with the same freedoms as all others. However, time and time again, people are denied these freedoms on the basis of skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or gender. Luckily, when such situations arise, the core belief that each and every person is owed liberty motivates the citizens of this nation to exercise their rights. With this in mind they speak out, or fight, against injustice, to take a further step towards making that dream of equality and a “healthy peacetime life” for all a
The First Amendment’s protection of free speech, while not absolute, allows citizens to express themselves to police officers even if that expression is rude, insulting, profane, obnoxious, or verbally abusive. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted, "[t]he freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462 (1987).
The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).