Joel is at a protest when he faces an opposing protest. Joel yells, "Don't let those bloody, criminal.un-American jerks step on your rights, no matter what! We stay; they leave!" The police try to makeJoel's group back up. Joel's group of protesters charges the other group and the police.Unfortunately, Joel's group injures three people, including a police officer. Joel is indicted for incitinga riot. Joel argues that he was exercising his right to free speech. Two of the state's witnesses, whowere members of Joel's group, testified that they would not have participated in the riot withoutJoel's call to action. Concerning this case against Joel, here is the most likely result:The jury could return a verdict of guilty, decide that Joel is not guilty, or simply be unable to reach a verdict:certainly, the First Amendment's free speech provision does not protect all speech, but on the other handeven strong language does not necessarily mean that a speaker is responsible for how individuals react to hisspeech.mThe jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because, even if Joel's speech was hateful and inspired his followersto act violently, Joel has the right to free speech as long as he (Joel) himself did not personally take part in actsof violence.The jury will return a verdict of guilty because Joel's speech is obscene.O The jury will return a verdict of guilty, because Joel's language was defamatory.O The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because the right to protest, especially if it is about matters of"politics," is nearly absolute.

Joel's involvement in a protest in the scenario above takes a turn for the worse when it is claimed that his inflammatory speech incites violence, leading to injuries and an indictment for inciting a riot. The First Amendment's protection of the right to free speech must be balanced with the restrictions placed on speech that incites harm or criminal activity in order to assess the possible outcomes of Joel's case.Explanation of Incorrect Options:B. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because, even if Joel's speech was hateful and inspired his followers to act violently, Joel has the right to free speech as long as he (Joel) himself did not personally take part in acts of violence.This option oversimplifies the relationship between free speech and incitement to violence. The First Amendment doesn't shield speech that poses a clear and present danger or leads to unlawful actions, even if the speaker does not directly participate in the violence.C. The jury will return a verdict of guilty because Joel's speech is obscene.The issue in Joel's case is not about obscenity but rather about whether his speech incited violence, making it an inadequate explanation for the potential verdict.D. The jury will return a verdict of guilty because Joel's language was defamatory.Similar to option C, the focus on defamation is misplaced. The central concern is whether Joel's speech incited a riot, not whether it was defamatory.E. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because the right to protest, especially if it is about matters of "politics," is nearly absolute.While the right to protest is protected, it is not absolute. Speech that incites violence or poses a danger may not be shielded by the First Amendment, as demonstrated in this case.Explanation of Correct Option:A. The jury could return a verdict of guilty, decide that Joel is not guilty, or simply be unable to reach a verdict. Certainly, the First Amendment's free speech provision does not protect all speech, but - on the other hand - even strong language does not necessarily mean that a speaker is responsible for how individuals react to his speech.This option captures the complexity of the situation. It acknowledges that the First Amendment has limitations, especially when speech incites violence. It also emphasizes that the speaker may not be held responsible for individuals' reactions to their speech unless there is a direct incitement to violence. The potential outcomes include a guilty verdict, a not guilty verdict, or a hung jury if the jurors cannot reach a consensus.Thus, A is the Correct Option

Business

Business Law

Joel is at a protest when he faces an opposing protest. Joel yells, "Don't let those bloody, crim un-American jerks step on your rights, no matter what! We stay; they leave!" The police try to Joel's group back up. Joel's group of protesters charges the other group and the police. Unfortunately, Joel's group injures three people, including a police officer. Joel is indicted for a riot. Joel argues that he was exercising his right to free speech. Two of the state's witnesse were members of Joel's group, testified that they would not have participated in the riot with Joel's call to action. Concerning this case against Joel, here is the most likely result: The jury could return a verdict of guilty, decide that Joel is not guilty, or simply be unable to reach a ve certainly, the First Amendment's free speech provision does not protect all speech, but on the other even strong language does not necessarily mean that a speaker is responsible for how individuals reac speech. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because, even if Joel's speech was hateful and inspired his fa to act violently, Joel has the right to free speech as long as he (Joel) himself did not personally take par of violence. O The jury will return a verdict of guilty because Joel's speech is obscene. The jury will return a verdict of guilty, because Joel's language was defamatory. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because the right to protest, especially if it is about matters "politics," is nearly absolute.

Joel is at a protest when he faces an opposing protest. Joel yells, "Don't let those bloody, crim un-American jerks step on your rights, no matter what! We stay; they leave!" The police try to Joel's group back up. Joel's group of protesters charges the other group and the police. Unfortunately, Joel's group injures three people, including a police officer. Joel is indicted for a riot. Joel argues that he was exercising his right to free speech. Two of the state's witnesse were members of Joel's group, testified that they would not have participated in the riot with Joel's call to action. Concerning this case against Joel, here is the most likely result: The jury could return a verdict of guilty, decide that Joel is not guilty, or simply be unable to reach a ve certainly, the First Amendment's free speech provision does not protect all speech, but on the other even strong language does not necessarily mean that a speaker is responsible for how individuals reac speech. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because, even if Joel's speech was hateful and inspired his fa to act violently, Joel has the right to free speech as long as he (Joel) himself did not personally take par of violence. O The jury will return a verdict of guilty because Joel's speech is obscene. The jury will return a verdict of guilty, because Joel's language was defamatory. The jury will return a verdict of not guilty, because the right to protest, especially if it is about matters "politics," is nearly absolute.

Similar questions

Lucy cannot stand the fact that her ex-husband, Ethan, is about to get remarried. After all, it was a horrible breakup, and Ethan was really mean to her. Lucy decides to get her revenge by telling Ethan’s employer that Ethan stole large amounts of money from his previous employer, even though Lucy knows it is not true. If Lucy follows through on her plan, she will have: a) not committed the tort of defamation because the statement would not harm Ethan’s reputation. b) committed the tort of defamation because it is an untrue statement intended to harm Ethan’s reputation, and she stated it to another person. c) not committed the tort of defamation, because she only made the statement to one person.
Sungsam, Inc., a Taiwanese company, and nineteen other Asian companies (the Companies) collaborated to manufacture and sell transistors internationally. These transistors were used in a multitude of consumer goods, millions of which were sold in the United States, including Georgia. The state of Georgia sued the Companies in Georgia, alleging violating consumer protection laws. The Companies filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, Plaintiff alleged that the Companies sold the transistors into international streams of commerce with the intent that they would be incorporated into millions of consumer products sold in the United States, including Georgia. Should the Companies motion be granted? © a. No because the Companies did not sell any products directly to Georgia consumers and did not conduct any business in Georgia. b. Yes because a foreign manufacturer’s placement of goods into the stream of commerce of the state of Georgia, with…
Erin is a lawyer with twin sons that are 12 years old. Erin is resting in her bedroom when she hears loud noises in the family room. She springs up, runs to the family room, and sees one son, Phil, punch the other son, Kip. Erin immediately orders Phil to stay in his room for the rest of the day and to not use the internet for 48 hours. As Phil mopes along the hallway to his room, Phil shouts. "Kip punched me first!" What legal principle would Erin recognize Phil's remark as being? O ad hoc because Phil is adding an accusation against his opponent Kip. O in pari materia because Kip attacked in the same manner as did Phil O caveat emptor because Phil thinks he is right. O jus ad bellum because Kip's action is what actually started the fight (the "war") O in pari delicto because they (Phil and Kip) are at equal fault.
Mark Clapp and Albert DiBrito worked for the Public Safety Department (PSD) in St. Joseph, Michigan. Clapp was the director and, DiBrito was the deputy director. They were under the supervision of the city manager. One day, Clapp told Tom Vaught, a PSD employee, that the previous city manager had hired DiBrito only because DİBrito had been investigating the city manager for possible wrongdoing. Clapp said that DiBrito had dropped his investigation in exchange for the deputy director position. DiBrito learned of Clapp's statement and filed a formal complaint against him on another matter with Richard Lewis, the current city manager. The investigation that followed revealed management problems within the PSD. A consultant hired by the city concluded that Clapp's remarks about DiBrito had been "inappropriate statements for a commanding officer to make regarding a second in charge." However, the consultant also identified issues regarding DiBrito's "honesty, inappropriate statements to…
KellyMarie Griffin works for the City of Portland, Oregon, as a clerical employee in the Parks and Recreation Department. She complains of conflict with her coworkers. In particular, Therea Lareau, the “lead” clerical employee at the same location, has made comments that are derogatory about or offensive to Griffin’s Christian faith. Ms. Lareau has referred to Griffin as “a wacko” because of her beliefs and, on at least one occasion, told Griffin that God was “a figment of [her] imagin[ation]” and that Griffin was “praying to something that didn’t exist.” Griffin also complains that many of her coworkers frequently page 51-42use “God” and “Jesus Christ” as swear words, which she finds offensive due to her religious beliefs. Griffin, however, admits that when she has informed her coworkers about how the swearing offends her, they have made efforts to avoid doing so in her presence—even Lareau. Despite that, things have deteriorated. Recently, Griffin and Lareau found themselves in a…
The manager of BP Petroleum Company limited is seeking police protection for the duration of a strike, called by the Trade Union, who are protesting for increases in emoluments for their members- employees of BP. The Police suggested that a mobile patrol would be adequate, but the HR manager of BP insisted on permanent police presence, because of pending lawlessness by strikers. The manager then offered to compensate the Police, if they agree on a permanent Police presence on site, during the strike period.The Police agreed to provide 10 officers at a rate of $500 per day, per officer, which they will maintain during the entire strike period. BP later agreed with the Trade Union’s demand for increase emoluments and the strike was called off after 5 days. The Commissioner of Police within a week sent an invoice to BP for the 5 days that the Police provided protection. However, BP refused to pay, and argued that the Police are under a duty to protect the company from any pending…
Post to “The California “Home Protection Bill of Rights” presumes that a person using deadly force on an intruder acted in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or a member of the household. Do you agree or disagree with such a presumption? Does the castle doctrine encourage gun ownership?”
Renee protests in front of a law firm's office building because she is convinced that one of the firm's lawyers horribly mistreated her. Renee tells a potential client who is entering the firm. "don't waste your time"; and she also implores that this person "seek another lawyer because the associate lawyer who represented me was and is a jerk." The potential client walks in anyway, as do many other customers. The law firm sues Renee and asks the court to grant injunctive relief that is, to stop Renee from protesting in front of its office building. Is the claim likely to succeed? O No, because the statement does not defame the business or prevent customers from being able to visit the business. Yes, because there is no absolute right to protest against a privately-owned business. O Yes, because the potential client unable to secure legal advice due to the protests. O No, because Renee has a First Amendment right to say whatever she wants about the business. O Yes, because Renee's…
Employee, a Muslim, is a management trainee at an airport car rental office. As part of her religious practice, employee wears a hijab (headscarf). She is told by her supervisor that the hijab does not match the uniforms she is required to wear, so she must stop wearing them or be transferred to another position with less customer interaction. Employee was later terminated as part of a company cutback. She sues for religious discrimination. Does she win? Explain.
Decribe the purpose and role of the manager in mediating disputes between parties, and explain the basic structure, elements and strategies involved in mediating conflicts between parties. (100 words)
Charles Byrd was in a minimum-security jail awaiting trial. A team of sheriff’s deputies wearing T-shirts and jeans took several inmates into a room for a strip search without any apparent justification. Byrd was ordered to remove all his clothing except his boxer shorts. A female deputy searched Byrd while several male deputies watched. One of the male deputies videotaped the search. Byrd filed a suit against the sheriff’s department. Did the search violate Byrd’s rights? Discuss. [Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, 629 F.3d. 1135 (9th Cir. 2011)]
Andy whispers into Anthony's ear, calling him terrible names, accusing him of horrible personal acts, and all sorts of other nonsense. Anthony can bring a successful suit for: battery defamation slander none of these