queston 1-The 1st Amendment Reads: “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”

Never use plagiarized sources. Get Your Original Essay on
Is it legitimate to let people accused of crimes go free when the police mess up?
Hire Professionals Just from $11/Page
Order Now Click here

Discussion Theme: The first Amendment protects our right to free speech & free assembly, but should there be limits? In Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), the Supreme Court upheld the power of localities to require permits and small filing fees for mass demonstrations and protests as long as the restrictions were applied uniformly to all groups and the restrictions were intended to suppress the content of a group’s speech.

Prompt: In 1977, the National Socialists of America (a Neo-Nazi group) requested a permit to parade through Skokie, Illinois (a suburb of Chicago) wearing Nazi uniforms and advocating for White Supremacy. Skokie had a large Jewish population, some of whom were survivors of the Holocaust. The city’s residents were understandably upset and persuaded the city to deny the permit because (1) it was inflammatory and offensive and (2) because it could cause riotous behavior to break out in response to the presence of the Nazi’s.

So, imagine you were on the court. How would you decide this case? Did the Nazis have the right to protest even though what they are saying is despicable, possibly traumatic, and could resort in a violent response? Should hate speech be protected by the 1st Amendment? How far is too far?


question 2- Read the article titled “The Exclusionary Rule on the Brink” by Richard Re, Washington Post Blogger. It would also be helpful to watch this video from Quimby about the case of Mapp v. Ohio.

After reading the article and watching the video, use it to facilitate your discussion thread posts below by responding to the following statement.

“The exclusionary rule just makes life harder for police officers who are just trying to do their job. If you have nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to worry about. Stop helping criminals and start helping the police do their job.”

Using this post, explain the ways you think the exclusionary rule helps or hurts citizens. Is it legitimate to let people accused of crimes go free when the police mess up?

Open chat
Lets chat on via WhatsApp
Hello, Welcome to our WhatsApp support. Reply to this message to start a chat.