Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The first amendment
Essays on first amendment rights
Introduction od an overview of freedom of speech
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As a private citizen, my privacy is very important, especially when in this new digital age; governmental agencies will use that information against you if they have a probable cause to. However, we are protected under the First and Fourth amendment, which gives us rights to speech, to drink or smoke in our homes without governmental intrusion. But when those rights are violated, we have the options to dispute those actions and if not satisfied with the results we can take it to the courts. But in order to do this we must limit what we say or do, in order to prevent these agencies from trying to impinge on our rights of liberty. What this does is give the agencies the right to look into our lives, but are we actually giving them the right or are we opening ourselves and allowing them to “eavesdrop into our conversations, lives, homes and vehicles. In what may be the first court ruling on the subject, a U.S. District Court in Minnesota earlier this month held that school officials who required a student to provide access to social media accounts violated the student’s First and Fourth Amendment protections. (Court: Student’s Facebook Messages Are Protected Speech, 2012) The case concerns a 12-year-old student in Minnesota who wrote a comment on her Facebook wall while in her home, expressing her dislike of a school employee, which was followed by another posting of a similar nature. The student was questioned by school officials about what she wrote, and was disciplined for each incident. The school officials compelled her to give them access to her Facebook and personal email accounts, which they searched. Citing precedents such as Tinker v. Des Moines, the District Court held that out-of-school statements “are protected u... ... middle of paper ... ...fordable. But at the time this form of surveillance wasn’t readily available to the public. (Kyllo v. U.S.) Even though it wasn’t readily available to the public, it still doesn’t justify law enforcement illegally searching a person’s home without a warrant. This is getting really scary, to think that someone feels as though I am living a better life than they are, and assume I am selling drugs, can inform law enforcement and they will use a thermal imager to look into my home. Our government has truly loss its mind. Whatever I do in my own home is my business, and it doesn’t require anyone to look into it to see why I am living like I do. Greed and corruption has taken over our society and if the people don’t start paying attention we could be living in a society completely controlled by government and law enforcement, so much for our Constitutional Rights.
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
Higher education law attorney Dana L. Fleming voices her controversial opinion in favor of institutionalized involvement in social network protection in her article “Youthful Indiscretions: Should Colleges Protect Social Network Users from Themselves and Others?” (Fleming). Posted in the New England Journal of Higher Education, winter of 2008 issue, Fleming poses the question of responsibility in monitoring students’ online social networking activities. With a growing population of students registering on social networks like Facebook and MySpace, she introduces the concern of safety by saying, “like lawmakers, college administrators have not yet determined how to handle the unique issues posed by the public display of their students’ indiscretions.” However, while Dana Fleming emphasizes the horror stories of social networking gone-bad, she neglects the many positive aspects of these websites and suggests school involvement in monitoring these sites when the role of monitoring should lie with parents or the adult user.
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
Privacy (Pri-va-cy) n.1.the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. Americans fear that technological progress will destroy the concept of privy. The first known use of wiretap was in 1948. It’s no secret that the government watches individuals on a daily bases. According to the constitution, the Fourth Amendment serves to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Unreasonable is the word that tips the balance On one side is the intrusion on individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights and the other side is legitimate government interests, such as public safety. What we consider reasonable by law, the government might not think so. The word ‘privacy’ seems to be non-existent today in the 21st century; the use and advances of technology have deprived us of our privacy and given the government the authority to wiretap and or intervene in our lives. Our natural rights we’ve strived for since the foundation of this nation are being slashed down left to right when we let the government do as they wish. The government should not be given the authority to intervene without a reasonable cause and or consent of the individual
The U.S. constitution contains no expression of valued rights in considering privacy. Therefore, the Supreme Court has adopted a rather narrow interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically in regards to the term liberty, as established in the due process clause . Earlier Supreme Court decisions were not concerned with how states constituted their residents. Thus, any state, at this time, was at the liberty to deprive its residents of their first amendment, freedom of speech, religion, and press. However, this is much leniency and room for interpretation in the Due Process Clause, because it may be stretched to constitute not only at federal level but the state level. Reinterpretation under the 14th amendment bonded the first ten Bill of Rights within state governments to protect the citizens’ liberty. State governments are then prohibited from denying persons within their jurisdictions the Privileges and Immunities of a United State citizen, and guarantees that all natural born citizens have Due Process and Equal Protection of their rights, this binding, in turn, created the incorporation doctrine . Thus, the due process clause does not govern how a state sets the rules for specific disciplinary procedures. For example, in the Bill of Rights it specifies that if a citizen were accused of a crime, then that citizen would have the right to defense from a lawyer. But, suppose the state, or federal, government did not privilege that citizen to a lawyer. Then, that government would have violated this citizen the right to due process that is assured in the constitution.
In document D the court sided with the students, but the students must serve ten days, but the ten day suspension will not be shown on their records. It must pose a threat, there was no threat so they sided with the students.In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension.J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language.J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.This evidence helps explain why schools should not limit students’ online speech because it didn 't cause a substantial disruption.
Which include danger to the school or any of the students and this should be the only way teachers and schools can restrict students’ rights. but schools tend to go too far restricting students’ rights “The principal had ordered the stories removed from the paper because he believed the story about teen pregnancy was inappropriate for some of the younger students at the school, based on its discussion of sexual activity and birth control”(What are the free expression rights of students in public schools under the First Amendment?) a student though that this was appropriate for the school to read and it was but the officials at the school did not think the same way. also another case Bazaar v. Fortune officials tried to stop publication of a book just because it had a few words in it that they did not like.(The First Amendment and Public Schools) this is taking there restrictions just too far. The government should be able to set guidelines of what the immediate danger is and what kind of expression goes way too far and have it sent out to all the schools in the United States. This might help schools from restricting our
If is ever morally permissible for the State to secure information about past events, then it is morally permissible for it to do so through the use of surveillance devices.
Cell phone privacy has become quite an issue over the past few years now that cell phone use is prevalent among most of the world. There have been many articles and news stories circling around about how the government is tracking every move on our cell phone. This includes the government and other entities recording our conversations. Many people view this as a violation of privacy because their expressed thoughts and feelings are being recorded and listened to by someone somewhere. Another ethical concern that this brings about is the violation of the privacy protections of the fourth amendment. Law enforcements officials have the right to access personal location data without giving probable cause to the judge (ACLU 1). While this can create an unnerving feeling I believe the government has taken these measures to keep the country safe. If the government can prevent...
The privacy of the individual is the most important right. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was founded. There are exceptions to privacy rights that are created by the need for defense and security.
The Fourth Amendment essentially stands for the proposition that all United States citizens are protected from the unlawful search of their persons and property. However, the Fourth Amendment had not applied to public schools due to the fact school officials were governed by the doctrine of in loco parentis. This doctrine is predicated on the idea the educators should be viewed as substituting the place of the parents while the students’ are in the school setting. Following the rationale of this doctrine, educators shared the same rights and responsibilities that a student’s parents po...