Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment
description
Transcript of Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment
![Page 1: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Civil Liberties and the 1st Amendment
![Page 2: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The Bill of Rights and the State• Barron v. Baltimore (1833)– While the Bill of Rights protected the people from
the national government -- not state governments.• The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)– “No State Shall …”
• Slaughter House Cases (1873)– Privileges and immunities clause
• Incorporation Theory– Selective v. Total
![Page 3: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Religion• Establishment : “Congress shall make no law regarding the
establishment of religion.”• Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
– Activity must: 1. Have a secular, nonreligious purpose; 2. Neither advance a religion nor discourage the practice of religion; 3. avoid “excessive government entanglement with religion”
• Free Exercise: No law “Prohibiting the free exercise of religion”– Government can regulate when practices are incongruent with public
policy• What's Allowed:
– Use of the Bible for secular study– religious student organizations (funding)– Student prayer and religious study– Teacher bible study– Opening prayers for public meetings
![Page 4: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Court decisions• Government may issue vouchers for parochial schools – Zelman v. Simmons
(2002)• Can’t forbid teaching evolution - Epperson v. AK• forbids compelling students to recite prayers – Engel v. Vitale (1962)• Clergy may not lead prayers at graduation ceremonies – Lee v. Weisman
(1992)• Polygamy outlawed due to violation of health, safety, and morals of the
community – Reynolds v. U.S. (1879)• State benefits denied for use of Peyote – Oregon v. Smith (1990) • City of Boerne v. Flores – states retain authority preempted by RFRA – (1997)• No student led prayer over PA system at extra curricular activities - Santa Fe
ISO v. Doe (2000)• Court decisions have also prohibited recitation of verse, the teaching of creationism,
and teacher led Bible study
![Page 5: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Current Issues• Can a religious organization be sued for employment
discrimination?– Hosanna-Tabor vs. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: ministerial
exception• Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits
brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimination laws
• Can a religious organization be compelled to provide services they consider morally offensive?– “Obamacare” contraception mandate --7 States suing over the rule
• all insurers will be required to provide "preventive health services." • A religious employer who objects to treatment aimed at prevention of pregnancy may
leave it out provided: (1) It has religious inculcation as its primary duty; (2) It primarily employs people of the same faith; and (3) It primarily serves people of the same faith
• Religious leaders and political opponents argue its a unconst. intrusion
![Page 6: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Freedom of Assembly
• Free assembly as important as free press and free speech – Freedom of assembly includes the right to parade
and hold demonstrations in public places, – Must get a permit.– May be limited.
– Demonstrations are not allowed on private property
– interferes with property rights
![Page 7: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Free Press vs. Prior restraint • Government censorship of information before it is published
– Near v. Minnesota (1931) – Gangsters and Grafters• MN law prohibited publication of “Malicious, scandalous, or defamatory”
info• Court ruled 5-4 that law must be voided because it involved prior restraint
– Pentagon Papers: NYT Co. v. U.S. (1971) – Credibility Gap• DOE official leaked documents, some secret, revealing gov’t lies about
Vietnam• Court ruled in favor of publication 6-3 … emphasized the need to bar the
gov’t from hiding embarrassing and harmful info• Government may use prior restraint if in the interest of
national security
![Page 8: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Free Press Issues • The Founders viewed the press strictly as printed material;
electronic media had not yet been invented.– Radio and television less protected than press media
• Natural conflict between 1st and 6th Amendments– “Court of public opinion”
• FCC regulates radio and television. – Cannot censor broadcasts but may set standards.– Movies and the Internet are protected by free press guarantees. – Communities may regulate obscenity within acceptable limits
• Refusal to display, sell, or screen material is legal
• Advertising receives less protection than political speech.– commercial speech trumped by protection of the public
![Page 9: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
How do these view differ on flag burning?
![Page 10: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Should Burning the American Flag be Legal?
![Page 11: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
What reasonable consequences might one face for their expression
![Page 12: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Freedom of Expression• Types of Expression:– Pure speech: spoken
word, verbal expression– Symbolic speech: expressive
action– Seditious Speech:
challenges authority– Defamatory speech: false
speech • Slander: spoken• Libel: written
– Obscenity: offensive speech– Commercial Speech– Political Speech
![Page 13: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Landmark Cases
![Page 14: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Is it reasonable to expect privacy on social networking sites?
![Page 16: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Should allowing access to your Facebook account be a condition of employment?
![Page 17: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Right to Privacy?• Constitutional Right? –Not Enumerated:•1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendment•Griswold and Roe
– Katz •4th protects people not places•Dissent: 4th refers to tangible items
![Page 18: Civil Liberties and the 1 st Amendment](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062323/56816715550346895ddb820a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Cases• Olmstead v. US (1929)
– Eavesdropping in public area• Katz v. U.S. (1967)
– Expectation of privacy in public (people not places)• Griswold v. Conn. (1965)
– Use of contraception (consenting adults in the home)• Roe v. Wade (1973)
– Right to abortion protected• Ouinlan (1976) & Cruzan (1990) cases
– Right to refuse treatment, must have “clear and convincing evidence” it was their wish
• Washington v. Glucksburg (1997)– No right to suicide
• Lawrence v. Texas (2003)– Sodomy laws unconstitutional (consenting adults in the home)
• Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)– Legality of physician assisted suicide left to states