polsc110_document_week03AssignmentPacket
doc
keyboard_arrow_up
School
California State University, Chico *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
CULTURAL A
Subject
Political Science
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
doc
Pages
6
Uploaded by fjrjfe
Week 03 Assignment Packet
Complete the Week 03 assignment packet according to the directions listed in I-Learn. Record your answers directly below each question. When you have finished your packet, save it and upload it to the W03 Worksheet: Civil Liberties page on I-Learn.
Part 1: Report on a Civil Liberties Case
1.
Summary:
Obergefell v. Hodges is a lawsuit that originated from the recognition of same-sex marriage. Which at
the time was legal in some states and illegal in others. Obergfell filed suit against states that didn't recognize same-sex marriage claiming that the states violated the the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, which resulted in same-sex marriage bans being deemed as unconstitutional, resulting in the plaintiffs' victory.
2.
What was the court's ruling?
The court's ruling was that same-sex marriage bans were unconstitutional and that everyone has a right to marriage according to the Fourteenth Amendment.
3.
Do you agree with the ruling? Why or why not?
While I personally don't agree with the ruling. From a paper viewpoint, they have a point in the fourteenth
amendment allowing same-sex marriage as it clearly states that everyone has a right to marriage despite differences.
4.
What did you learn about Supreme Court cases from this exercise?
I learned that there is a great reliance on judicial decisions in many of the rulings. I never realized that cases that go to the Supreme Court have a great emphasis on the Constitution and are generally in relation
to the Constitution in one way or another, as that is the cynosure of the Supreme Court.
5.
What were the points of the dissenting opinion and do you agree with them?
From my research, one of the main points of dissenting opinion was that the right to marriage does not make it where the states are in need of changing their policies and laws on the subject. There was also the point that the Constitution does not specifically address same-sex marriage. Therefore, there is no such justification that the states need to allow it as it is something that the Constitution does not explicitly go into detail with.
BYU-Idaho
1
POLSC 110
I agree with the dissenting opinions as they have solid grounds for why states should have the right to decide if same-sex marriage should be accepted, as it is not deemed to be a federal issue but a state issue, according to the dissenting opinion.
BYU-Idaho
2
POLSC 110
Part 2: Get Involved Activity on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
Part A
1.
Which of the following is not explicitly protected by the First Amendment: assembly, petition, privacy, or the press?
Privacy is not explicitly protected by the First Amendment. Unless in the home. 2.
Do the federal courts have the right to send a journalist to jail for refusing to reveal a news source? Do you think this is justified? Why or why not?
The federal courts have the right to send a journalist to jail for refusing to reveal a news source. I feel this is not justified as it is a journalist's right to publish the press without government interference. Journalists have shield laws that should protect them from having to reveal information, but it seems these laws are not always up to practice, and the government finds ways around them.
3.
Which of the following do you think material on the Internet is most like: speech by individual citizens, programming by broadcast television stations, or reporting by newspapers?
In my opinion, material on the internet is most likely speech by individual citizens. Sites such as Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, General Forums, Etc. Have allowed individuals to express their thoughts, concerns, opinions, and feelings like never before. Therefore, individual opinion dominates the internet. While private business is no doubt on the internet and contributes to sources of information on sites such as Reddit and YouTube, such as news stations, private business, and of equivalence, the bulk of the information and videos is provided by individual citizens, which dominates the internet.
4.
Should government be able to regulate offensive or pornographic content on the Internet? Why or why not?
The government should not be allowed to regulate offensive information on the internet. If they were to do so, they would be violating independent media. While the First Amendment does not explicitly protect obscenity, it does allow Americans the right to access such sources of information and prevents the violation of such information to not being accessible.
Part B
BYU-Idaho
3
POLSC 110
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
1.
How and why do terrorist organizations use the internet to support their objectives?
Terrorist organizations use the internet because it provides instant access to information that could not be found otherwise. Censorship is sparse on the internet as it provides information on almost every topic a terrorist could need information on; even if information is taken down, there are always new sites publishing the same information in which government regulation of such information can't keep up. Such as how to make bombs, cook meth, Etc.
2.
How have governments responded to terrorist websites?
Counter-terrorism is the keyword when it comes to the response of government websites by the U.S. Government. Every government has a varied way of dealing with terrorist websites, depending on the country and its policies. But, when it comes to the U.S. They have responded by taking down the websites, sometimes tracking IP addresses of people who may pose a threat if they own or contribute to a terrorist website, and lastly, investigating and punishing publishers of terrorist websites if they pose too big of a threat of committing a crime.
3.
Some government officials have argued for greater government regulation of the Internet to combat terrorism. Civil liberties advocates have warned against a "slippery slope," in which governments will
increasingly regulate more Internet speech in the name of national security. Where do you think the balance should be struck between free speech on the Internet and national security?
I agree with the Civil liberty advocates that it is a “slippery slope” to allow government regulation of the internet, as the extent and power they will have over the citizens would be unsatisfactory when it comes to having too much control. While national security is a concern, so is the rights of the American people over the government. Therefore, I feel the balance between the two varying sides is to continue with the current status where the government conducts surveillance on the internet. They investigate sites that pose
a threat, but they are still limited when it comes to regulation. The balance is acceptable to how it currently resides.
BYU-Idaho
4
POLSC 110
Part 3: Civil Rights vs Civil Liberties Comparison
1.
Write a 1 page essay (single or double spaced) describing the difference between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. Use the textbook and any other credible sources to inform yourself and cite those sources. Please include court cases as examples. You are welcome to use the cases listed in the textbook.
There are many differences between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights. The establishment, reason, and motive behind them vary greatly. Civil Liberties protect the American people from general government interference when it comes to press, opinion, property, fair trial, Etc. Meanwhile, Civil Rights are established in a manner in which they protect against discriminating conduct and practices.
Its cynosure protection pertains to nationality, race, color, religious views and practices, and much more up to modern-day implementation.
There are many examples of both Civil Liberties and Civil Rights in action, which often inflicts a lawsuit scenario, as history has shown. When a citizen feels that their Civil Liberties and rights may be in violation for whatever reason, they can file a lawsuit for protection of their rights. One example of a court case that revolves around the subject of Civil Rights is Brown v. Board of Education. This is a historical case in which a father took her daughter to an all-white school where she was refused entry. Soon after, the Brown v. Board of Education suit was prompted (Ginsberg 121). The outcome was the Supreme Court ruling that laws which allowed segregation based on the factor of race in U.S.
Public schools were a violation of Civil Rights, making it an unconstitutional implementation in schools.
Much like Civil Rights, cases for Civil Liberties have also played a major factor in changing the U.S.
System throughout history. Such as the case of the band known as the Slants, which took suit over their name not being able to be trademarked as a violation of the First Amendment and their Civil BYU-Idaho
5
POLSC 110
Liberties. When the U.S. Patient's office rejected their name, they filed suit, as they felt their Civil Liberties were being violated due to the band's name rejection by the U.S. Government, as the patient's office felt the name was offensive, which rejects it for the patient. But, due to the nature of the band and the reason why they wanted the name they won the case: “Once the Court declared the clause unconstitutional, they lost the legal basis for their argument, so the team was able to keep the name” (Ginsberg 88). , This case further examines and shows an example of Civil Liberties practiced by Americans in action.
In both cases, the differences between Civil Liberties and Civil Rights are clearly in action. The key differences are in the establishment, motive, and conductive practices of both. Civil Liberties can be seen as much more “personal” to a citizen as it deals with protections from the government. Meanwhile, the Civil Rights deal deals with legal protections such as rights to public services, education, voting, Etc.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al. We the People (Essentials Edition). Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (13th Edition). W. W. Norton, 2021.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights#:~:text=Civil%20Rights%20and%20Civil
%20Liberties&text=Civil%20rights%20are%20not%20in,in%20the%20Bill%20of%20Rights
.
BYU-Idaho
6
POLSC 110
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help