What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, which the author will be aware of.
Embed code for: vasquez- IPC
Select a size
Insane Clown Posse
Public safety vs. freedom of speech
According to the 1st amendment of the united states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Cohen v. California (1971)
The defendant, Cohen expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket that had “F**k the draft. Stop the war. “He was just quietly protesting the war. He did not say anything out loud, threaten anybody or cause any disturbance. But still he was charged under a California law that prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct.” He was sentenced to 30 days of jail.
The Supreme court held that offensiveness is not a reason to limit the free speech rights.
Government pass laws to keep our society and us safer but, as they make our society safer they are slowly taking our rights, liberty and freedom away from us.
Can government ban the sale of music and related merchandise?
Government cannot ban the sale of music and related merchandise because it is a violation of our first amendment. They should not go beyond censoring the explicit lyrics and words because it takes away from the singer’s message regardless good or bad. As supported by Ken Paulson from firstamendment.org, who states that “The First Amendment allows us to say what’s on our minds. That freedom doesn’t disappear just because the message has a backbeat”. This sums up the situation that a group name the Insane Clown Posse is facing on a daily basis. Although the worries from parents and school authorities are understandable and holds value to the most part, this is not enough to justify the ban when there are things like PARENTAL ADVISORY stickers and muting special words are present.
They are not the only ones who are under strict control. In addition to songs with explicit messages and words, the confederate flag is also banned from being sold in big platforms like Amazon and Walmart. The reason being is that “they were deemed to be offensive” as told in the website Info wars. Thus, further proving the fact that when a form of message, whether musical of a symbol, lacks the backup from the first amendments rights when exposed to public attention and culture.
Can a school punish students for expressing their free speech on campus?.
A school cannot punish students for expressing free speech on campus. As fought out in the Tinker v. Des Moines case, any educational establishment that prohibits free speech is violating the right s of the students. A city may have the ability to fine an individual for wearing clothing deemed as unsafe. Throughout the United States there are a variety of laws concerning
public dress. In some states, public nudity is legal, while in a few others sagging one’s pants is illegal.
Can a school or city prevent students from wearing costumes deemed dangerous?
Every expression of free speech has its fair share of limitations, but the extent of where those in charge can draw the line is very unclear. South Park Tech and the City of South Park deem it inappropriate for students and residents to buy and wear clown related item. The court should keep in mind that the danger at hand is not the clown related items but the people themselves who take advantage of the hype caused due to the clown scares. The band Insane Clown Posse is a show of art, talent and more importantly free speech. The threat of a simple shirt or show is not subject to any danger to the public.
In the case Watts v. United States, the free speech of an individual claiming to want to assassinate the then president Lyndon B. Johnson and the court ruled that his claim "must be distinguished from true threats...". If this example of free speech has caused the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the accused, the COURT properly distinguished a fake threat from a real one. It's clearly delusional if the music artist Insane Clown Posse are thought to be a threat to the well-being Of the people. Wearing a clown related item is the free speech of the individual which should not be taken away from them. A school and or city should distinguish between the real threat of the people living in the area and of the minuscule threat of ICP merchandise.
Can stores be fined for selling merchandise that are deemed unsafe by local government?
Due to the subjectivity of this question, the answer must be general, yet, as objective as possible. We must determine what is deemed, “unsafe” by the government? Is this the same as what is deemed unsafe at an airport? Reflecting the words of the first Amendment of the US constitution, “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Living in the United States, we have the right to practice our religion, free speech, press, and the right to assemble as we please. As the shirts, may be harmful to few, they are not directly targeting anyone or any specific group, and they do not fall under the category of a, “hate crime” because they are not expressing hate towards anyone. Therefore, the merchandise is wrongfully being deemed, “unsafe”, and should no longer be prohibited. In result, by prohibiting the appearance of the merchandise, the government is prohibiting our exercise of free speech and press.
Referring to the memo; “99 cent music was closed down by the order of the city for public nuisance and not following the order to ban sales of clown items from their store”. 99 cent music was closed down because of their lack of obedience to the law. Throughout the history of the country, we have determined that, “an unjust law is no law at all”. It was only constitutional that the music store continues to sell any type of music. This upholds the music store’s integrity, the music store’s constitutionality, and the music store’s right to creativity and sale of any type of music.
Does a stadium that was partially payed for by taxpayers be prevented from holding events that are considered controversial or deemed unsafe?
A stadium that was payed for by taxpayers should be public. Anything payed for by taxpayers should be open to all who are able to pay for the venue. Under no circumstances should the stadium deem the performance wrongfully unsafe. Protected by the first amendment, anyone in the stadium that wishes to perform, shall perform, unless the performance is physically dangerous to the crowd or performers. It is unconstitutional to deem something, “unsafe”, when it is, “unfavorable”. This forces the music group to be deprived of their basic first amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and press.
According to the memo; “Wendy Williams was fined $250.00 for playing ICP music loud in her car”. In relation to being prevented to perform in a public stadium, Ms. Williams was arrested for simply playing music on her own property in her own discretion. The only grounds that Ms. Williams could have been arrested on are playing music too loud therefore disturbing the peace, being parked in a, “No standing zone”, or listening to music in a reportedly stolen car. The government agency, in this case, completely disregarded Ms. William’s first amendment and personal privacy by arresting this innocent woman on false grounds.
Lithan Zaman, Dolma Sherpa, Michael Gordon, Vasilios K, Anahi Velez.
Mr. Vasquez Period 2t the people themselves who take advantage of the hype caused due to the clown scares. The band Insane Clown Posse is a show of art, talent and more importantly free speech. The threat of a simple shirt or show is not subject to any danger to the public.
In the case Watts v. United States, the free speech of an individual claiming to want to assassinate the then president Lyndon B. Johnson and the court ruled that his claim "must be distinguished from true threats...". If this example of free speech has caused the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the accused, the COURT properly distinguished a fake threat from a real one