Law Cases With States Paper Example

Schenk v. the United States (1919, case citation number: 249 U.S 47)

This case involved Schenck who was responsible for a conspiracy and was involved in circulating circulars to the people who had been appointed and called to the military. The draft wanted them to obstruct the draft which would have caused a great effect, Schneck activated insubordination in the field of military and the forces based in the United States by telling the recruited men to enlist their services towards the United States, this service was under the Act of 1917 May 18. However, Schenk accepted about printing the circulars during the war between the German Empire and the United States, the circulars he printed were meant to cause obstruction and also result in insubordination (Mill 156). The defendant also accused of committing an offense to the United States. The case of Schenk v United States which was ruled upon by the justices on the 19 March 1919 was that the availability of freedom of speech in the United States afforded as stated in the constitution and the first amendment. However, that freedom could be restricted or reduced if a person spoke or mentioned words that meant or presented a danger to the society.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Mill, he would have insisted the importance of individuality in this case and also would have objected the government and said that the individual who in this case was Schenk subjected to the freedom of speech and he would have protected the defendant form the tyranny of the government. The reason for him to rule this was that he believed that the tyranny was supposed to function according to the way the liberal citizens wanted. He focused on the most important rights of the citizens; he also would have ruled on the basis that the human beings required freedom and development. He believed that was the assimilation of the circumstances that resulted in the big difference between classes of individuals and also what was responsible for shaping their characters.

In this case, I believe that there was a need for the Schenk actions to be protected because in a civilized country people have the freedom of speech and whatever they want to say or the message they want to pass should be taken seriously. Also, the defendant had every right to circulate this circular because they were only meant to help the recruits since they were just going to do volunteer work which was dangerous to their lives (Fridell 28). Therefore more reasons why the government was offended by what she said because it was the bare truth it was what was coming and was going to happen. The defendant defied the law but she only did what was right, and she did not deserve to be punished by the law because she was protecting her fellow citizens against oppression by the government of the United States. Therefore if it were my case, I would have let the defendant go free because I believe in the truth.

Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942, case citation number: 315 U.S. 568)

This case involved a Jehovah's Witness named Walter Chaplinksy who committed the offense of turning a sidewalk at the public area downtown as a pulpit or a place to preach where he gave out pamphlets which condemned the organized religion by stating them as a racket. Chaplinksy got arrested after people crowed at the pulpit which resulted in blocking of the roads which attracted the police who then arrested him. Walter had received several warnings from the towns, Marshall, that he was allowed to conduct his activities,but he was expected to keep it low and avoid causing a lot of commotion in the public area to avoid destructing the normal activities. They also charged Chaplinksy for mentioning offensive words to others in a public space, with regards to the Hampshire's law conduct what he did was illegal because he addressed some offensive to other people. He became annoying or derisive words to the people who were lawfully in the streets and also it was offensive to call anyone by any offensive words.The court made decisions that the part of speech Chaplinksy made feel out of the protection of the constitution and for this case the words Walter said did not have any contribution on the way ideas were expressed and also did not possess any value-basedsocial issues when searching for the truth.

In the case of John Mill, he would have presided this cause by saying that he considered the interests of all the individuals and in this case, he would have incurred his sacrifices to defend the defendant from being molested or from being oppressed. He would have ensured that he shows the societies who have certain conditions as well as justified at all costs to enforce to those who requires justice by ensuring he fulfilled it. It is because he believed that the actions of other people could hurt individuals or would not act to consider the welfare of the people and therefore, in this case, he would have fought for the justice of the defendant because there is freedom of speech amended in the constitution.

According to me, the defendant actions should notface protection,and there was a right for him to face punishment because he was supposed to show respect to other people's religion and respect what they believed in instead of calling them offensive names such as being "racket." Although freedom of speech was allowed, he was not supposed to mention and judge other people because of their religion(Mill et al.124). I am sensitive when it comes to religion, and therefore I believe he should have been punished to respect religion as well as to stop insulting people in public.He was allowed to condemn religion inside his thoughts or by sharing with people in private, but the act of abusing people in public should not face punishment.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943, case citation number: 319 U.S. 624).

This case involved Jehovah's Witness who refused or whose beliefs in religion forbade them to salute or to make promises to symbols; the believers were arrested by Nazi Germany for refusal to salute and respect the Nazi flag. When they refused, they sent them to camps that concentrated as a way of punishing them. The issue was ruled over by Barnette in 1940 in the school Minersville District School where the judiciary stated that there was a resource that was properly trying to change the democracy in the public schools. There was a law that required all the public schools to change to some courses which gave instructions for the major purpose of teaching and giving reasonable ideas and also instill principles of being an American that would in turn result to increase in knowledge. However, this case was won by a group of Jehovah's Witnesses who helped bring justice to them and themselves. In this case, the court ruled that there was no power bestowed upon the state that allowed them to compel speech in any way in any manner, therefore there were no effects addressed by the court that had any effects on any beliefs in religion in the basis of completion and salutation. When the court was making their ruling, they majorly depended upon the Clause of Free Speech of the constitution of the First Amendment instead of relying on the Clause of Free Exercise.

According to John Mills "On Liberty," he would have solved this case by stating that there would have been a need to respect the religion and beliefs of other people before setting new laws. He believed in justice and also believes that human beings have common wants and business with each other to continue with life. There wasa need for every individual whether the state or individual to concern themselves with the needs or wants of other people even though their interests are not involved(Mill et al. 112.). People should ensure they promote the best of others; Millsbelieved that there was a need to suppress opinions because when prejudice occurs it resulted to evil but human beings have never avoided it and it and also it was always regarded as the cost paid for being good. He also insisted on the value of individuals since they were known to be thriving from the pleasures of the human life.

In my opinion, changing of what people believed or knew was difficult and was also an act of oppression, if the religion of an individual does not allow them to make promises to symbols or bow to them, the state should have respected that. The culture of people was meant to stay,and it did matter how much authority they had the important thing was what they did to ensure it remained at all times(Fridell 98). The school where they were expected to change their syllabus was allowed because such institutions are subject to law and the change of the syllabus would have resulted in better performance. Therefore there are things which were supposed to change,but others were not such as change of religion.

Cohen v. California (1971, case citation number: 403 U.S. 15)

This case involved Paul Robert Cohen arrested for having a jacket containing some words which read "Fuck the draft" in the courtroom in Los Angeles outside the corridor of the municipal court. Cohen faced conviction and accused of violating the code of Penal of California that was against disturbing the peace of the surrounding neighborhood because of conducting himself offensively. The punishment was a thirty-day jail sentence, the California Court of Appeal was responsible for upholding the conviction which explained that one conducts themselves offensively, takenas behavior that intended to provoke individuals because they expected them to act by producing violence or otherwise disturb their peace of mind.

The decision of the court was as follows; they put more emphasis that such kind of case mainly concerned the act of speech or and not how people conducted themselvesand taken as a big issue in the United States. It was considered unlawful for anyone to try and abridge the content of Cohen's speech as well as failure to follow the constitution. However, there were also some few instances that the court thought were not appropriate especially instances where California was playing the role of monitoring the way or manner, the time and also the place of the speech given by Cohen being independent of the contents of Cohen's speech. Some sections of the court also stated that they didstate the laws on what the citizens were supposed to know what was wrong and what was right and that's the reasons they ended up violating some laws because they were not enlightened.

If John Mill had ruled over this case, he would have considered the actions that the court would have taken against the victim or in this case Cohen. He would have suggested that the state could have acted irrational and he would do anything to defend people even if meant interfering with the youths in the societal in pursuit of their justice. He would also have punished the consequences that resulted from the bad behavior but not the way the individual conducted themselves with failure to be irrational. He also would have upheld the obligations by making sure that all people in a state remained moral from their childhood to adulthood, he would have suggested that there was need educate the youth in the society to ensure they act responsibly at all times.

According to my opinion, the evil vices should face punishment as long as there was justification to punish an individual for wrong conduct. For Cohen's case, there was a need to be punished for the accusation of violating the code of Penal of California that was against disturbing the peace of the surrounding neighborhood because of conducting himself offensively. The punishment was a thirty-day jail sentence, the California Court of Appeal was responsible for upholding the conviction which explained that one conducts themselves offensively, being behavior that intended to...