Chapter 6

1)
In the scenario, the Constitutional principal at play is the freedom of press, which has largely
been protected by Supreme Court cases that give media outlets wide leeway in the kind of
information published, regardless of how it was obtained, and these publishers are protected
from legal repercussion except for extreme cases.

As described in the scenario, this legal protection gives a publisher such as WikiLeaks the
authority to publish all of the documents they’ve obtained without fear of the government
pressing charges.

In the context of the scenario, the relationship among the branches increases the tension
between order and individual rights because the judiciary has held up the freedom of the press
under the First Amendment, but the executive and legislative branches are trying to press
charges or change the law to impact Julian Assange. These conflicting ideologies result in
increased tension and the conflict between security and freedoms.

2)
Based on the graph, suicide is the most common type of death from guns.

The vast majority of deaths by gun- approximately 33,600 out of 35,000- are intentional. A pro-
gun control group would likely observe that this number could be greatly reduced by taking
guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and known criminals in order to reduce the number of
shootings and the number of suicides.

Those who want to protect Second Amendment liberties can observe that the problem is not
the possession of guns but rather is the lack of mental health treatment. If we can better help
those who have mental illness, they could say, we can reduce the rates of gun deaths.

3)
Both the case of Morse v. Frederick and Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District were
focused on students’ freedom of speech within schools. In Morse, the student in question had
displayed a banner promoting illegal drug use at a school event and was suspended as a result.
In Tinker, the Court was discussing students who wore arm bands to protest the Vietnam War
and were suspended as a result

In Tinker, the Court agreed that the students had not caused a disruption and were merely
expressing a political ideology through peaceful protest. In Morse, however, the student was
promoting the use of an illegal drug and was creating a disruption at a nationally televised,
school sanctioned event. This distinction of disruption meant that the Court ruled against the
student and drew a line in the Morse case.
 Chapter 6

The ruling in the Morse case indicates that students who want to hold an assembly supporting
legalization of marijuana may be limited by the school because it is a disruptive, attention-
grabbing event which supports something illegal that does not align with school values. Morse
sets the precedent that the school can limit students’ free speech here and take away this right
to assemble.

4) Should hate speech be illegal in the United States?

Though many can argue that hate speech damages minorities and opens the door for
discrimination, it should not be illegal in the United States based on the rights listed in the First
and Fourteenth Amendments.

In the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it is made clear that Congress
cannot deny the freedom of speech under any circumstances. This is a right which has been
tested numerous times in cases before the Supreme Court, but the Court has ruled time and
again that free speech can only be limited in the face of a “clear and present danger.” As such,
speech, even if it is hateful or derogatory to others, must be protected by the government.

Furthermore, the Fourteenth Amendment reasserts the protection of civil liberties from
the government. It lays out that no state may abridge the rights of citizens without due process,
including the right to free speech. This means that the Fourteenth Amendment bolsters the
freedom displayed in the First Amendment and mandates that this be upheld.

Opponents may argue that hate speech is obscene and offensive to the average
American. However, the Supreme Court has a test laid out in the case of Miller v. California
which helps define obscenity, and hate speech does not meet this requirement. The Miller test
requires that obscene ideas appeal to the prurient interest and lack social value, but hate
speech does not meet these requirements. While hate speech may be offensive, it can hold
political value for those who use it in elections, and it does not meet the lewd ideas of the
prurient interest. As such, the government has no leeway to outlaw hate speech and is required
to protect it under Constitutionally granted rights.