Elvis Rodriguez
Fall 2015
Civil Liberties Final Freedom is a condition in which people have the “opportunity” to speak act and try to pursue happiness without any unnecessary restrictions. Freedom is important because it leads to expressions of original thought, increased creativity and a high quality of life. The idea of freedom is complex and it’s not so easy to understand. In the United States “essential” freedom are “guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights, a part of the constitution. The most well known rights are the freedom of speech, the press, peaceable assembly and petitioning the government. Throughout the history of government parties have punished inappropriate acts and those who have criticize them and their …show more content…
During this time Pennsylvania had placed requirements that needed to be meet before receiving an abortion. Physicians needed to make the women aware of the risks, there needed to be a mandatory 24hr waiting period, one parent consent requirement, clinics need to report the (age of women and the reason the abortion was being made). In this case courts used Roe v wade as a precedent and denied the spousal being notified; and it also created a less strict interpretation on “undue Burden”. This case was also about whether Roe v Wade should have been overturned or not. For the first time ever the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standards asked whether an abortion has the purpose if an effect of imposing an undue burden, which is defined as a substantial obstacle for the women seeking an abortion before the fetus, attains viability. The only provision that seemed not to pass the undue burden test had to notify the husband as a …show more content…
New Hampshire statute prohibited any person from addressing any offensive or “fighting words” on streets or public place. When looking at this case we try to understand if fighting words are entitled to protection under the 1st amendment. When this case was decided they came to a conclusion that fighting words are words that are meant to inflict injury or tend to breach the peace and are not protected by the first amendment. This is basically saying chaplinsky said these words in order to inflict injury or breach the peace. Meaning these words are not a form of expression. The words he said are similar to action and actions cannot be
Fall 2015
Civil Liberties Final Freedom is a condition in which people have the “opportunity” to speak act and try to pursue happiness without any unnecessary restrictions. Freedom is important because it leads to expressions of original thought, increased creativity and a high quality of life. The idea of freedom is complex and it’s not so easy to understand. In the United States “essential” freedom are “guaranteed” by the Bill of Rights, a part of the constitution. The most well known rights are the freedom of speech, the press, peaceable assembly and petitioning the government. Throughout the history of government parties have punished inappropriate acts and those who have criticize them and their …show more content…
During this time Pennsylvania had placed requirements that needed to be meet before receiving an abortion. Physicians needed to make the women aware of the risks, there needed to be a mandatory 24hr waiting period, one parent consent requirement, clinics need to report the (age of women and the reason the abortion was being made). In this case courts used Roe v wade as a precedent and denied the spousal being notified; and it also created a less strict interpretation on “undue Burden”. This case was also about whether Roe v Wade should have been overturned or not. For the first time ever the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standards asked whether an abortion has the purpose if an effect of imposing an undue burden, which is defined as a substantial obstacle for the women seeking an abortion before the fetus, attains viability. The only provision that seemed not to pass the undue burden test had to notify the husband as a …show more content…
New Hampshire statute prohibited any person from addressing any offensive or “fighting words” on streets or public place. When looking at this case we try to understand if fighting words are entitled to protection under the 1st amendment. When this case was decided they came to a conclusion that fighting words are words that are meant to inflict injury or tend to breach the peace and are not protected by the first amendment. This is basically saying chaplinsky said these words in order to inflict injury or breach the peace. Meaning these words are not a form of expression. The words he said are similar to action and actions cannot be