A person OM along with nine others were convicted for conspiring terrorism. The evidence that supported the charges against him included his social media posts. The person OM appealed that the social media posts were not proved to be his own. To find: The connection between the posts on social media and the person posting it as alleged by the government.

Question

"7. Freedom of Speech. Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a “nod to their Italian heritage” and “weakening the derogatory force of the slur.” Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the appli-cation because of WD’s branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD’s right to free speech. What principles apply to the government’s regula-tion of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD’s case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)"

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 9, Problem 5BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: A person OM along with nine others were convicted for conspiring terrorism. The evidence that supported the charges against him included his social media posts. The person OM appealed that the social media posts were not proved to be his own.

To find:The connection between the posts on social media and the person posting it as alleged by the government.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

"7. Freedom of Speech. Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a “nod to their Italian heritage” and “weakening the derogatory force of the slur.” Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the appli-cation because of WD’s branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD’s right to free speech. What principles apply to the government’s regula-tion of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD’s case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)"

Mary purchased 6 bags of potatoes from Smart Shops. Unknown to either party, the potatoes had become unfit for human consumption due to a secondary growth. What rights does Mary have?

Should the public have taken more of a stance against his actions? If so, what action(s) could the public have taken? If not, give reasons why the public should not involve itself in such situations. Should the government have taken any action in this situation, given that the CEO was making a point against legislation it had introduced? If so, explain the action that you believe the government should have taken. If not, explain why you do not believe any government action is justified.