Featured Post

Was the radicals who were to blame for the Peterloo massacre essays

Was the radicals who were at fault for the Peterloo slaughter papers It was the radicals who were at fault for the Peterloo slaughter? ...

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Law Cases Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Law Cases - Essay Example Additionally, it questions if limiting specific conduct, can be due to an opinion that is unpopular. South Carolina Supreme Court decision was that the state had no power to arrest and charge the demonstrators totally based on the opinions they were expressing. The court indicated that the defendants were convicted of an offense that was general in nature and not of exact definition. The Supreme Court thus reversed the decision of the State Trial Court. Due to lack of hostility on the side of demonstrators as well as spectators in addition to lack of clear evidence that the traffic flow was disturbed by the demonstrators made the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. According to the Supreme Court, the state suppressed the demonstrator’s freedom of speech. The case involved Florida A&M students who demonstrated in a non-public drive near a jailhouse premises. Despite being warned by the sheriff, they continued with the demonstrations leading to the arrest of 107 students. After being convicted by Florida Circuit Court as well as the District Court of Appeals, the petitioners indicated that they were denied fourteenth amendments rights. The major issue in this case is to determine whether or not the students had the right to engage in a demonstration on non-public premises. Another issue was to determine whether the jailhouse is included in the category of public office. According to the Supreme Court, the drives as well as the jailhouse premises are not in the category of public property. Since the petitioners had no intention of seeking service from the jail the abatement argument was dismissed. During the hearing, violation of constitutional rights was not perceived to have an impact on the case. During this case, the reasoning was that the state has the right to enforce its rules to protect the ground that is private. There lacked recorded evidence

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.